The point is that if you increase coverage by 10%, and decrease overall costs by say 1%, you are decreasing your cost per covered person by 11%. That’s not an insignificant place to start, and certainly puts us in a better place than we are now. Definitely one could and should argue that there are more ways to save, and also definitely we don’t need to chase all of them today. Get something functional operating, get everyone covered, then pursue making it better, step-by-step.
I like what you say about pursuing things step-by-step. Unfortunately, Liz and Bernie and the single payer crowd have decided to focus exclusively on one of the hardest-to-achieve steps that will offer the least savings, which is a very bad plan. And that's even assuming that they can effect the cost savings they intend to; Liz is talking about paying medical providers 110% of current Medicare rates, so hooray for that token acknowledgment that Medicare rates may not be enough to sustain our medical providers without causing some disruption ... but let's also recognize that Medicare rates as they stand today, are structured to then require copayments and deductibles, so it's not even clear that the 110% will get medical providers as much as they currently do from Medicare patients. If our medical providers can't remain solvent, M4A fails, period.
But even assuming that 110% won't put medical providers in a bind, there is still the small matter of having to collect several trillion a year in taxes, and we would probably do VERY well to drive that number down before trying to get Congress to pass a bill to collect it. That's where regulating and restructuring medical providers first comes in. Or -- even easier -- start with a public option, where people voluntarily pay their premiums much like they do now. Expand the ACA's subsidies for low-income people, and we get to full coverage that much more easily, with only a modest tax increase.
I truly think the push for single payer has less to do with helping anyone, and more to do with single payer being a fetish. Leading single payer advocates have told their base that we can do single payer without also regulating medical providers directly -- again, every country with a functioning health care system regulates medical providers directly -- and if they actually gave a damn about helping people, they wouldn't mislead their bases. I realize we tend not to question the goodwill of progressive leaders, but perhaps we should. We saw what happened in Vermont when they tried to do single payer without regulating medical providers -- it got so expensive that they couldn't find a way to fund it, and finally had to pull the plug on it -- and that is exactly the fate that will befall single payer on the national scale if we steadfastly refuse to learn from Vermont, or from single payer's successes (and failures) in other countries. Where single payer succeeds, it's because the government controls medical providers directly. Where single payer fails, it's because the government does not.
Here's a pretty good site that goes over how other countries manage their health care. I'll start with a link to France. Notice how much work the French government puts into directly regulating prices and managing how medical providers operate. They don't do that just for fun; they do it because that's how you get a working system.
I’m personally more of an incrementalist as well, and would support anything which is better than what we’ve got. And realistically I believe no matter the policies being put forward now, that’s what we’ll likely get (assuming we get anything) as the sausage gets made after an election. I think Liz and Bernie are just setting a flag, saying “This is absolutely important to us, and we want to make it clear that we’re all in for it.” But I’m sure both of them will be realistic when it comes to making it happen. Warren at least is not the type to try to rule by executive fiat. Bernie may lean a little more in that direction, since he’s so passionate, but reality says he wouldn't get everything he wants. I believe even he would compromise when the rubber hit the road.
Bernie was willing to help put Trump in office if he couldn't be the nominee himself. He is motivated by ego, greed, and a desire to show everyone he was right all along. There is no room in the man for gracefully acknowledging that someone else has a better idea.
Liz is better than that, but she's still got a huge stripe of panderer to her.
Yep. Vision too. And long-term care. The whole shootin' match, at least in concept. In reality, I'd assume elective cosmetic surgery and quack remedies wouldn't be, but that sort of granular detail isn't explicitly mentioned.
Because of anthropomorphisation and cultural hegemony, duh. Us humans are culturally dominant over ponies, so they they use our words instead of their own.
It's less expensive than doing nothing and continuing as we are. We pay more for healthcare per capita than any other developed country and everyone isn't covered.
The point is that if you increase coverage by 10%, and decrease overall costs by say 1%, you are decreasing your cost per covered person by 11%. That’s not an insignificant place to start, and certainly puts us in a better place than we are now. Definitely one could and should argue that there are more ways to save, and also definitely we don’t need to chase all of them today. Get something functional operating, get everyone covered, then pursue making it better, step-by-step.
I like what you say about pursuing things step-by-step. Unfortunately, Liz and Bernie and the single payer crowd have decided to focus exclusively on one of the hardest-to-achieve steps that will offer the least savings, which is a very bad plan. And that's even assuming that they can effect the cost savings they intend to; Liz is talking about paying medical providers 110% of current Medicare rates, so hooray for that token acknowledgment that Medicare rates may not be enough to sustain our medical providers without causing some disruption ... but let's also recognize that Medicare rates as they stand today, are structured to then require copayments and deductibles, so it's not even clear that the 110% will get medical providers as much as they currently do from Medicare patients. If our medical providers can't remain solvent, M4A fails, period.
But even assuming that 110% won't put medical providers in a bind, there is still the small matter of having to collect several trillion a year in taxes, and we would probably do VERY well to drive that number down before trying to get Congress to pass a bill to collect it. That's where regulating and restructuring medical providers first comes in. Or -- even easier -- start with a public option, where people voluntarily pay their premiums much like they do now. Expand the ACA's subsidies for low-income people, and we get to full coverage that much more easily, with only a modest tax increase.
I truly think the push for single payer has less to do with helping anyone, and more to do with single payer being a fetish. Leading single payer advocates have told their base that we can do single payer without also regulating medical providers directly -- again, every country with a functioning health care system regulates medical providers directly -- and if they actually gave a damn about helping people, they wouldn't mislead their bases. I realize we tend not to question the goodwill of progressive leaders, but perhaps we should. We saw what happened in Vermont when they tried to do single payer without regulating medical providers -- it got so expensive that they couldn't find a way to fund it, and finally had to pull the plug on it -- and that is exactly the fate that will befall single payer on the national scale if we steadfastly refuse to learn from Vermont, or from single payer's successes (and failures) in other countries. Where single payer succeeds, it's because the government controls medical providers directly. Where single payer fails, it's because the government does not.
Here's a pretty good site that goes over how other countries manage their health care. I'll start with a link to France. Notice how much work the French government puts into directly regulating prices and managing how medical providers operate. They don't do that just for fun; they do it because that's how you get a working system.
https://international.commo...
I’m personally more of an incrementalist as well, and would support anything which is better than what we’ve got. And realistically I believe no matter the policies being put forward now, that’s what we’ll likely get (assuming we get anything) as the sausage gets made after an election. I think Liz and Bernie are just setting a flag, saying “This is absolutely important to us, and we want to make it clear that we’re all in for it.” But I’m sure both of them will be realistic when it comes to making it happen. Warren at least is not the type to try to rule by executive fiat. Bernie may lean a little more in that direction, since he’s so passionate, but reality says he wouldn't get everything he wants. I believe even he would compromise when the rubber hit the road.
Bernie was willing to help put Trump in office if he couldn't be the nominee himself. He is motivated by ego, greed, and a desire to show everyone he was right all along. There is no room in the man for gracefully acknowledging that someone else has a better idea.
Liz is better than that, but she's still got a huge stripe of panderer to her.
Good point about the "small" classification.
So then Thunderdome really is our only option?
Yep. Vision too. And long-term care. The whole shootin' match, at least in concept. In reality, I'd assume elective cosmetic surgery and quack remedies wouldn't be, but that sort of granular detail isn't explicitly mentioned.
Insert Rainbow Dash "Oh boy oh boy oh boy!" clip!
Hold on, why would a little pony be using an exclamation with a human child in it?
Free market is the only thing that would work.
She's not educated at all. She's a fraud who advanced by lying about her race.
Ta, Dok.
Because of anthropomorphisation and cultural hegemony, duh. Us humans are culturally dominant over ponies, so they they use our words instead of their own.
All of which lends support to the fanfic on Lyra's theory that humans once roamed the planet.
Kk
It's less expensive than doing nothing and continuing as we are. We pay more for healthcare per capita than any other developed country and everyone isn't covered.
Government is incapable of doing anything positive except letting the free market work.