- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,606
- Reaction score
- 19,348
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
[NOTE - Article headline too long for forum format - truncation identical to the one done on the FOX News main page so don't blame me if the thread title is misleading]
From FOX News
Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care plans: ‘That’s not American’
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for calling for private health care plans to be abolished -- the latest plank is what is becoming an increasingly left-wing platform from the California Democrat.
Harris, who announced her 2020 bid for the White House last week, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper Monday night if people could keep their current health care plan under her “Medicare-for-All” plan. She indicated that people could not, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.
KAMALA HARRIS VOWS TO GET RIS OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS: 'LET'S ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT. LET'S MOVE ON'
"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told Tapper.
"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued. "Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on."
COMMENT:-
The odds on Mr. Trump's supporters making any distinction between "a call to eliminate private (for profit) health care insurance plans" and "a call to eliminate private health care" are slim to non-existent.
Of course, I'd never suggest that FOX News was deliberately fostering a belief that the Democrats wanted to eliminate ALL private health care in the United States of America and turn America into a socialist dictatorship where every aspect of daily life would be regulated and you could be "declared redundant" by some "state death panel" at any moment (especially if you were deemed to be "opposed to the state") - but others will.
[NOTE - Article headline too long for forum format - truncation identical to the one done on the FOX News main page so don't blame me if the thread title is misleading]
From FOX News
Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care plans: ‘That’s not American’
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for calling for private health care plans to be abolished -- the latest plank is what is becoming an increasingly left-wing platform from the California Democrat.
Harris, who announced her 2020 bid for the White House last week, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper Monday night if people could keep their current health care plan under her “Medicare-for-All” plan. She indicated that people could not, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.
KAMALA HARRIS VOWS TO GET RIS OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS: 'LET'S ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT. LET'S MOVE ON'
"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told Tapper.
"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued. "Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on."
COMMENT:-
The odds on Mr. Trump's supporters making any distinction between "a call to eliminate private (for profit) health care insurance plans" and "a call to eliminate private health care" are slim to non-existent.
Of course, I'd never suggest that FOX News was deliberately fostering a belief that the Democrats wanted to eliminate ALL private health care in the United States of America and turn America into a socialist dictatorship where every aspect of daily life would be regulated and you could be "declared redundant" by some "state death panel" at any moment (especially if you were deemed to be "opposed to the state") - but others will.
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites (central planners?) who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
[NOTE - Article headline too long for forum format - truncation identical to the one done on the FOX News main page so don't blame me if the thread title is misleading]
From FOX News
Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care plans: ‘That’s not American’
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for calling for private health care plans to be abolished -- the latest plank is what is becoming an increasingly left-wing platform from the California Democrat.
Harris, who announced her 2020 bid for the White House last week, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper Monday night if people could keep their current health care plan under her “Medicare-for-All” plan. She indicated that people could not, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.
KAMALA HARRIS VOWS TO GET RIS OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS: 'LET'S ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT. LET'S MOVE ON'
"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told Tapper.
"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued. "Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on."
COMMENT:-
The odds on Mr. Trump's supporters making any distinction between "a call to eliminate private (for profit) health care insurance plans" and "a call to eliminate private health care" are slim to non-existent.
Of course, I'd never suggest that FOX News was deliberately fostering a belief that the Democrats wanted to eliminate ALL private health care in the United States of America and turn America into a socialist dictatorship where every aspect of daily life would be regulated and you could be "declared redundant" by some "state death panel" at any moment (especially if you were deemed to be "opposed to the state") - but others will.
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites (central planners?) who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
We have the internet, and therefore we are able to look to countries with single payer or hybrid care that are not basically failed states (and are not in any danger of being so).
We have the internet, and therefore we are able to look to countries with single payer or hybrid care that are not basically failed states (and are not in any danger of being so).
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites (central planners?) who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
We have the internet, and therefore we are able to look to countries with single payer or hybrid care that are not basically failed states (and are not in any danger of being so).
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites (central planners?) who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
And Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Japan and every other western nation. They all have universal HC coverage. We insist that paying a minimum 20% surcharge on all HC coverage to insurers for cutting the checks to providers with our money is the best system and then we complain about how expensive it is.
Under fire from whom? A hole right wingers?
Granted, there is no need to ban private healthcare, if rich people want special treatment they should be able to pay for it. But companies should not be making profits over people's healthcare. it's disgusting, and it should really piss off everybody how much money corporations are making off people's health and well being. Need universal healthcare, and the option for premium for the rich could still be available
I used to think this, regarding timeliness and quality of care.
But the health insurance that is 'affordable' for most middle and lower income Americans is nearly worthless anyway (And you still end up paying a lot of out of pocket) so maybe it wouldnt make any difference in quality of care.
But you make a good point about just general govt budgetary failure/danger. Bureaucracy is always a huge problem.
Under fire from whom? A hole right wingers?
Granted, there is no need to ban private healthcare, if rich people want special treatment they should be able to pay for it. But companies should not be making profits over people's healthcare. it's disgusting, and it should really piss off everybody how much money corporations are making off people's health and well being. Need universal healthcare, and the option for premium for the rich could still be available
I agree 100% yet that same internet shows us the 100% pubic K-12 education in the US is not on par (measured by per pupil costs and/or student test scores) with those 'superior' other nations. It is not a simple matter of if government control can make a system better but also a matter of which government is doing the controlling and how. Many (most?) of those other governments are not dominated by only two political parties or, as ours sometimes is, controlled completely by only one.
One huge problem with a nationwide system is the vast cost of service (based on cost of living) variation - what is setting a broken bone worth (i.e. its "fair" price)? Does it vary based on the care provider being located in rural MS or in central NYC - like the cost of a haircut, restaurant meal or two bedroom apartment does?
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.013390/full/According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, administrative costs in Medicare are only about 2 percent of operating expenditures. Defenders of the insurance industry estimate administrative costs as 17 percent of revenue.
Insurance industry-funded studies exclude private plans’ marketing costs and profits from their calculation of administrative costs. Even so, Medicare’s overhead is dramatically lower.
Medicare administrative cost figures include the collection of Medicare taxes, fraud and abuse controls, and building costs.
So-called “competition” in the private health care market has driven costs up.
In most local markets, providers have monopoly power. Consequently, private insurers lack the bargaining power to contain prices.
In most areas, two or three dominant insurers dominate the regional market, limit competition and make it extremely difficult if not impossible for new insurers to enter the marketplace and stimulate price competition.
Medicare Advantage, which enrolls seniors in private health plans, has failed to deliver care more efficiently than traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Both the CBO and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), the commission which advises congress on Medicare’s finances, have calculated that Medicare Advantage plans covering the same care as traditional Medicare cost 12 percent more.
Karen Ignagni, who heads America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the insurance industry’s trade association, has admitted that private plans cannot bargain down provider costs and has asked Washington to intervene.
Medicare Is Publicly Accountable, Private Plans Are Not
When it comes to how much it costs private plans to deliver care, or individual insurer innovations that deliver value, the publicly available data are scarce. Goodman and Saving present only one study on the ways that insurers try to control costs, and this was published by AHIP. Because Medicare is publicly accountable, it allows us to study what works so that we can improve the health care system.
The authors cite a number of innovations that could lower the cost of care, but all of them have been introduced by doctors and clinics, not insurers. Because insurance companies treat their claims data as trade secrets, we do not know if they have adopted such innovations.
Even government-funded Medicare Advantage plans don’t release payment and coverage data.
A closer look at the data shows that, contrary to Goodman and Saving’s claims, Medicare delivers health care more efficiently than private insurers. Medicare’s public accountability and bargaining power give it the ability to drive system change and control skyrocketing health care costs, while profit-driven private insurers have offered no solution.
Why so you consistently poison the well of discussion by including slams on Fox and "Trump supporters? This could have been an interesting discussion. Now, it's just another ignorable TDS effluvia stream.[NOTE - Article headline too long for forum format - truncation identical to the one done on the FOX News main page so don't blame me if the thread title is misleading]
From FOX News
Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care plans: ‘That’s not American’
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., came under fire on Tuesday for calling for private health care plans to be abolished -- the latest plank is what is becoming an increasingly left-wing platform from the California Democrat.
Harris, who announced her 2020 bid for the White House last week, was asked by CNN host Jake Tapper Monday night if people could keep their current health care plan under her “Medicare-for-All” plan. She indicated that people could not, suggesting she wants to move toward a single-payer system rather than a mere expansion of Medicare.
KAMALA HARRIS VOWS TO GET RIS OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PLANS: 'LET'S ELIMINATE ALL OF THAT. LET'S MOVE ON'
"Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care. And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," Harris told Tapper.
"Who among us has not had that situation?" she continued. "Where you got to wait for approval, and the doctor says, 'Well I don't know if your insurance company is going to cover this.' Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on."
COMMENT:-
The odds on Mr. Trump's supporters making any distinction between "a call to eliminate private (for profit) health care insurance plans" and "a call to eliminate private health care" are slim to non-existent.
Of course, I'd never suggest that FOX News was deliberately fostering a belief that the Democrats wanted to eliminate ALL private health care in the United States of America and turn America into a socialist dictatorship where every aspect of daily life would be regulated and you could be "declared redundant" by some "state death panel" at any moment (especially if you were deemed to be "opposed to the state") - but others will.
Her argument (assertion?) is that monopolies are bad unless they are run entirely by government elites (central planners?) who are allegedly accountable to the people. That, of course, is what yields things like Greece, Puerto Rico or Venezuela.
One huge problem with a nationwide system is the vast cost of service (based on cost of living) variation - what is setting a broken bone worth (i.e. its "fair" price)? Does it vary based on the care provider being located in rural MS or in central NYC - like the cost of a haircut, restaurant meal or two bedroom apartment does?
Their governments aren't dominated by a two-party system, therefore we should have stupid, misinformed debates about one of the biggest issues in our country where one side only cites countries that are failed states in order to make the case that nothing should be done?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?