Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care ...

[TheParser]

Those people who call for the abolition of private health care providers are the first people who seek out the best PRIVATE health care providers when they or their loved ones need top medical care.

They remind me of those people who tell us ordinary people to give up our cars in favor of bicycles or public transportation, but they and their loved ones continue to ride around in luxurious cars.


What sanctimonious hypocrites.

 

[Fenton]

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).

Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan is not a hybrid single payer plan, and it seems Harris's plan isn't either.

 

[Fenton]

I'm surprised sometimes how often you and I came to the same conclusions even though we're technically on opposite "sides".

And we saw during the ACA process how beholden democrats are to health insurance companies.

Of course that fits my model that its really competing teams of money backing the Dems and Republicans.

Health insurance relies on American paychecks so they back Dems.

Lol !
Insurer's bailed on ObamaCare exchanges after losing billions in profits
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-in-trouble-as-insurers-tire-of-losing-money

Backing the Democrats is expensive apparently.

 

[HumblePi]

This is the lie. The Whole healthcare is free it won't cost you a thing. it is complete bull****. why can't you people be honest.
The average payroll tax increase will be 15-25% on working people. that doesn't include supplemental insurance that costs more money.
it doesn't include all the other stuff. now if you want it to get rid of that you are looking at a payroll tax of 30-40%. i can't afford all your free stuff.



No she proposes that you have to go to her and the government and hope that they deem it necessary that you get your healthcare.
which is the same plan that they can't come up to pay for either. You would be 100% wrong as you have no clue how medicare works.


Not surprisingly, Kamala Harris' plan will not be popular among those invested in the private health care insurance business. 'Medicare for All' holds out the promise of addressing this problem, and finally reaching the elusive goal of universal coverage, by automatically enrolling everybody in the government plan and then using regulation to set prices for doctors, hospitals, and the rest of the health care industry. Typically, such proposals envision people paying for coverage entirely through taxes or income-related premiums, with little or no co-payments, deductibles, and other forms of cost-sharing.



it won't fly because they can't pay for it. it costs too much. it is more expensive with less options than i have now with my good private healthcare.

where i don't need permission to see a doctor etc ...

The richest 1 percent of Americans were projected to receive about 21 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax law in 2018, and 83 percent of its benefits in 2027. Only 17.4 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax cuts would go to the lower and middle classes. For Harris’s plan, that number is about 90 percent. But its cost would be high, adding $2.8 trillion to the federal deficit in its first 10 years and an additional $3.4 trillion in the following decade. Harris has proposed paying for the tax cut by eliminating the parts of the Republican tax law passed last fall that benefits the rich, as well as levying a new tax on large financial institutions.

Last year, Congress gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to corporations. That money should have gone to American taxpayers who need it instead of handing it over to corporations and the top 1 percent. The plan would be funded in part by a repeal of the GOP tax cuts for those making more than $100,000 a year and a new tax on big bans. However it’s paid for, the plan would direct about $200 billion a year to largely working class and poor households.

 

[What if...?]

Lol !
Insurer's bailed on ObamaCare exchanges after losing billions in profits
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...s-in-trouble-as-insurers-tire-of-losing-money

Backing the Democrats is expensive apparently.

Paywall.

But I suspect it's more nuanced than your chortle.

 

[ludin]

The richest 1 percent of Americans were projected to receive about 21 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax law in 2018, and 83 percent of its benefits in 2027. Only 17.4 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax cuts would go to the lower and middle classes. For Harris’s plan, that number is about 90 percent. But its cost would be high, adding $2.8 trillion to the federal deficit in its first 10 years and an additional $3.4 trillion in the following decade. Harris has proposed paying for the tax cut by eliminating the parts of the Republican tax law passed last fall that benefits the rich, as well as levying a new tax on large financial institutions.

Last year, Congress gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to corporations. That money should have gone to American taxpayers who need it instead of handing it over to corporations and the top 1 percent. The plan would be funded in part by a repeal of the GOP tax cuts for those making more than $100,000 a year and a new tax on big bans. However it’s paid for, the plan would direct about $200 billion a year to largely working class and poor households.

holy deflection arguments batman. this is the biggest red herring post i have ever seen on here.
wow 100% nothing to do with the topic or what is posted.

congrats your concession is noted.

 

[phattonez]

[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.
​

Who's putting her under fire? Nobody likes the health insurance companies. CNN and MSNBC create fake outrage stories all the time, but Fox is showing that it's no slouch, either.

 

[Neomalthusian]

You do know that you are talking only about supplemental or HMO policies that replace traditional Medicare.

There is no need to split hairs. Any proposal to implement single payer and thereby eradicate health insurance companies from the equation seems to likely be ignoring the integral role they already play in the administration of Medicare.

 

[Conservative]

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.

So you believe those are examples of liberal utopia? What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who believe the grass is always greener on the other side? Did you grow up being taught that it was someone else's responsibility to provide you your personal responsibility issues? Why is it you cannot see the waste, fraud, and abuse of our federal tax dollars now and want to give those bureaucrats more control. Which one of those countries has 330 million people and 50 different independent states with different costs of living? Why isn't this a state and local issue?

 

[Conservative]

The richest 1 percent of Americans were projected to receive about 21 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax law in 2018, and 83 percent of its benefits in 2027. Only 17.4 percent of the benefits from the GOP tax cuts would go to the lower and middle classes. For Harris’s plan, that number is about 90 percent. But its cost would be high, adding $2.8 trillion to the federal deficit in its first 10 years and an additional $3.4 trillion in the following decade. Harris has proposed paying for the tax cut by eliminating the parts of the Republican tax law passed last fall that benefits the rich, as well as levying a new tax on large financial institutions.

Last year, Congress gave a trillion dollars in tax breaks to corporations. That money should have gone to American taxpayers who need it instead of handing it over to corporations and the top 1 percent. The plan would be funded in part by a repeal of the GOP tax cuts for those making more than $100,000 a year and a new tax on big bans. However it’s paid for, the plan would direct about $200 billion a year to largely working class and poor households.

LOL, another individual who is very upset that the federal govt. isn't getting more money. Tell me liberals how do you give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes and how do you explain the incredible benefits this year coming from those tax cuts? Are you truly jealous of what other people have or is this just an act? Why is it so important to take money out of the pockets of people in the states to give to a federal bureaucrat or raise taxes on corporations which pass those higher costs onto their customers thus driving up prices.

You people promoting these liberal ideologies obviously have never run a business, have no understanding that businesses won't hire people if there isn't demand and demand is created by people spending money. So many people here wasting their time promoting those liberal utopias that don't really exist

 

[upsideguy]

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.

More like Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Denmark and Sweden and others.... those places with better national healthcare, more prosperity, more equitable economic circumstances AND happier citizens than the US.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/duncan...-countries-in-the-world-in-2018/#50cc7e873e91

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-26/..._1_norway-prosperity-new-zealand?_s=PM:LIVING
Legatum Prosperity Index 2018

Forgive her for trying to think of ideas to make America greater by eliminating some of our problems, like the most expensive healthcare in the world with borderline 3rd world outcomes.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are considering starting hearings on Medicare for All. That is smart to start this now so that can campaign on the issue in 2020 and have a pre-packaged bill for the Democratic majorities and Democratic President taking office in 2021.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...begin-medicare-for-all-hearings-idUSKCN1PN2M2


BTW, Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

[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.

She'll never get it anyway, but at some point cooler heads will educate her on single payer.
Sherrod Brown, who is looking better all the time, might have an excellent idea on how to introduce single payer. He thinks it can be implemented in stages, with an incremental plan that would allow people as young as 55 to buy their way into Medicare coverage, which normally kicks in at 65.

"Look who is most vulnerable in health care. It's a 58- or a 61-year-old man or woman in Dayton who has lost her job because her plant closed. She's 58. She can't find insurance. And it's a point in her life when her health's getting bad, especially if she worked construction or in a factory or worked in a diner or worked in a hair salon and was on her feet all day. That's when they need Medicare.
I don't oppose Medicare for all. I've not co-sponsored Medicare for all because I don't think we get there now. I think what we do is Medicare at 55. It's voluntary. It's a buy-in. You can do it, fiscally responsibly, and give that 58-year-old, laid-off woman in Zanesville, Ohio, a chance to buy in to Medicare at a reasonable price at that age."

The end result is, premiums in private sector insurance start to drop in price because the private sector risk pool winds up carrying a lot more younger and healthier people. The older folks who most often face the catastrophic stuff get to buy into Medicare at a younger age.

Then maybe in a few years it may be possible to drop the buy-in age to something like 45 or 50, in an incremental fashion.
Think of it as if single payer is being introduced in the same way that marijuana legalization is being introduced.
If nothing else, Sherrod Brown is supporting something that is TRULY "PROGRESSIVE" in every respect.

It would be lovely and delightful if the world actually worked the way AOC envisions it. She's twenty-nine still. (LOL)
She's awesome in many ways but she's maybe a wee bit naive in some ways as well.
The world works a lot more like Sherrod Brown thinks, and we have to accept those realities.

 

[Helix]

Kamala Harris under fire after calling for abolition of private health care ...

i read that it was private insurance, but i haven't had a lot of time to research her comments, and i'm not giving fox a click. my opinion is that this is called setting the goalposts correctly, something that was not done properly during the ACA debates. had the opening offer back then been an American NHS, my guess is that they could have gotten a public option at the very least.

either way, private insurance will most likely still have a role in any American universal health care solution. i doubt that a single payer system will pay for one hundred percent of everything with no copays or doughnut holes. the end goal is to have the single payer involved in enough of the process that it can force down the ridiculously high prices and put us more in line with the rest of the first world.

 

[iguanaman]

So you believe those are examples of liberal utopia? What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who believe the grass is always greener on the other side? Did you grow up being taught that it was someone else's responsibility to provide you your personal responsibility issues? Why is it you cannot see the waste, fraud, and abuse of our federal tax dollars now and want to give those bureaucrats more control. Which one of those countries has 330 million people and 50 different independent states with different costs of living? Why isn't this a state and local issue?

The fact that they have nearly half the per person HC costs with better outcomes than us makes me beleive we are doing HC all wrong. What makes you think we are not?

 

[apdst]

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 also have a constitution that guarantees a Republican form of government, not communism.

 

[iguanaman]

There is no need to split hairs. Any proposal to implement single payer and thereby eradicate health insurance companies from the equation seems to likely be ignoring the integral role they already play in the administration of Medicare.

The fact is that those supplemental plans are also less cost effective makes me think we need to abolish insurers for good. If the wealthy want to pay extra for insurer plans we can make them optional as long as they are also paying their share for UHC too.

 

[iguanaman]

We also have a constitution that guarantees a Republican form of government, not communism.

LOL Yes just like Reagan warned Medicare has turned us into a communist country. :lamo

 

[apdst]

LOL Yes just like Reagan warned Medicare has turned us into a communist country. :lamo

Don't laugh. When they create a great system for themselves and a ****ed up system for everyone else, you and your family will fall into the category of "everyone else".

 

[RetiredUSN]

So you want to keep paying them billions for cutting checks? Medicare has 2% administrative costs vs. 17% for private insurers.

That can be argued.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...icares-low-administrative-costs/#62360e01140d

 

[iguanaman]

That can be argued.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...icares-low-administrative-costs/#62360e01140d

Yet even this anti-medicare article cannot argue with this..

In addition, Medicare's massive size leads to economies of scale that private insurers could also achieve, if not exceed, were they equally large.

And if you add the 20 to 25% profits private insurers make you can really see why a non-profit system will be cheaper. Insurers also have a vested interest in driving up costs since that increases their profits and stock price. Ask yourself why insurers would try to lower costs and premiums when they make a % of those?

 

[iguanaman]

Don't laugh. When they create a great system for themselves and a ****ed up system for everyone else, you and your family will fall into the category of "everyone else".

UHC is the same system for all so "they" can't do any such thing.

 

[apdst]

UHC is the same system for all so "they" can't do any such thing.

Yeah! Whatever! No one named Obama is on Obamacare.

Anyone who thinks the political class won't be exempted from medicare for all is out of his gourd. :lamo

 

[Conservative]

The fact that they have nearly half the per person HC costs with better outcomes than us makes me beleive we are doing HC all wrong. What makes you think we are not?

I am truly sorry that you made bad choices growing up and never learned personal responsibility, there are consequences for those choices. You believe the govt. is the answer, I feel sorry for you

 

[Greenbeard]

From FOX News

Universal coverage is very popular (as, unsurprisingly, is the idea of eliminating personal spending on premiums or health care services). People tend to be very supportive of the phrase "Medicare for all" when they think it's just another phrase for universal coverage. The political challenge is that if people believe it means eliminating all existing health plans, the phrase becomes much less popular.

Kudos to Harris for owning that admission if that's actually what she wants to do, but it's more politically treacherous than being deliberately vague about the impacts or searching for alternative ways to get at universal coverage.

doctors and specialists in my area don't take medicaid. so what do i do?

Then don't buy into Medicaid in that scenario.

 

[iguanaman]

I am truly sorry that you made bad choices growing up and never learned personal responsibility, there are consequences for those choices. You believe the govt. is the answer, I feel sorry for you

If you like to pay double for the same product then you are the one with a learning deficiency. I'm on Medicare now and think everybody should be too.