You are stepping on your own arguments. You say you are not against private healthcare, then you tout saving 25% by removing the insurance layer. And I am assuming no greed on the part of medical students inspired to become doctors. Most do not do it for the money, however like any other field, they expect to make enough money to pay off their enormous student debts and make at least an upper middle class living. As for how much anyone in any field makes, that should be decided by the market, not the government.
Not at all. Being against private insurance but not private care where the patient pays directly is to be for private care, just against insurance management of care (because it adds to the cost some 25% or so ).
I realize the argument of "choices", and one will choose which plan serves his or her needs, and why remove a choice? isn't that the American way? Perhaps, but I don't see it that way.
if medicare for all covered everything ( except maybe most teeth and cosmetic ) then the need for this or that plan for varying needs is a moot point, all needs will be met.
(if it isn't, then I would be for changing it so that it is ).
Given the above, I would support dental insurance, and cosmetic insurance ( one might get into an accident and be disfigured, requiring reconstructive surgery --- and-- if the reconstructive surgery is needed for essential quality of life, then I would support medicare paying for it )
This way, given that health care dollars are already being spent, all this system would do is redirect dollars already being spent in a new direction, one that is a more efficient system ( medicare spends 8% on admin, private insurance spends 25% -- but the details of this are being debated, of course. I'm saying in general one would be more efficient than the other ).
Also, I'm for free education, especially for doctors. The reason, damn the cost, this is mission critical stuff, stuff for national security because the health of the nation is an aspect of national security. A sick and uncared for nation is not in America's best interest, morally and strategically.
This would free up millions in disposable income and come right back to the economy, more than offsetting the cost.
Also, student debt is a huge stress, and stress leads to more sickness, and isn't that what we are trying to prevent in the first place?
Can't afford it? The reverse is true, we can't afford not to do it.
Okay, the " I don't want a government run health care" objection: .
I hate to tell you this, but you pretty much already have a government run health care.
The gov is all over health care, private and public. Health care is highly regulated.
But what kind of argument is that, anyway?
You are not complaining about government run police.
You are not complaining about government run defense.
You are not complaining about government fire department?
How is it that the only beef is when it is health care?
It's give and take, but the overriding issue is what is at stake.
What is at stake is that without medicare for all, millions will fall through the cracks and not get covered. The goal is everyone having health care, and that would be a net gain for society, including free school ( not all school, though, this would have to be weighed and valued as to what would be in the nation's interest to be public, and what would be more suitable to the private ).
Remember, before anyone knee jerks about "bankruptcy", I'm only talking about redirecting dollars that are already being spent into a more efficient system. Even if not totally true, I would support a modest increase in spending/taxes for a noble goal ( with the burden of taxes on the higher earners much more than the lower earners ).
For those who are arguing "bankruptcy", bring that argument on. I can rebut it (or at least I think I can)
