Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not To Worry About Democrats Pushing MFA

[ttwtt78640]

So "free" involves cost you say...

:2wave:

Yep, but not necessarily to the recipient of the particular social benefit. That was my point. Roads are obviously not built and maintained without cost yet there is no cost to me to ride in a vehicle on them.

 

[Helix]

real health care reform probably won't happen until there's another economic collapse, IMO. when we're close to full employment, everyone is getting their for profit health insurance through their employers, and most feel secure with it until they have to use it for something serious. the time to push single payer will be when a lot of people are out of work because of the casino gamblers on Wall Street.

 

[Surrealistik]

Do you think insurance companies are her only megadonors? Are they her largest megadonors?

I could see more large corporate donors wanting MFA for the simple fact that it shifts one of their biggest business expenses onto the government.

Drug, medical supply and finance companies probably wouldn't be too happy about it either, as SP typically involves _big_ price concessions in the case of the former two, and in the case of the latter, you're looking at the ongoing, albeit controlled demolition of a subset of the insurance industry that would probably not be good for certain investors.

If more megadonors supported MFA than opposed it, that fact certainly hasn't come to light in any meaningful way unfortunately, and I very much doubt Pelosi would oppose it as she does. Personally, I wish you were right, because if it that were the case, MFA would likely have been passed into law awhile ago, particularly when the public first started to show majoritarian support for it. I mean if a piece of policy is a mutual slam dunk with voters and donors alike, you would be an absolute fool not to pass it, whether Democrat or Republican.

Just food for thought, even with Medicare you still have to buy a supplemental insurance policy.

Most MFA concepts I'm aware of involves coverage comprehensive to the point of not needing supplemental insurance; the plans I'm aware of are actually more generous than that in Canada, and you don't really need supplemental coverage here.

Primary insurance won't go away. There will still be a huge market for private insurance when doctors in the medical field refuse to take your medicare for all because they can't afford it.
they are not going to work for 40% less than what they do now with private insurance...

which is why support for medicare for all drops into the 30%...

I haven't see any recent polling data that demonstrates a drop to 30% support. If you could link it, that would be greatly appreciated.

As to the need for supplemental/private insurance, yes, I'm sure wealthier people might want some (assuming their payers can negotiate a better price than out of pocket to justify it), but as mentioned above, most versions of MFA I'm aware of are more generous than Canadian healthcare coverage I'm intimately aware of as a dual citizen, and I have personally never felt the need for any kind of private supplemental. The market would certainly be limited, which is why health insurers obviously aren't keen on MFA as a point of policy.

Lastly, concerning physicians getting paid less, they don't have to work for 40% less; even with substantial 20% price concessions, they would still be paid better than the vast majority of the rest of the developed world. The rest of your critiques are generally superficial or exaggerated. Despite excessive spending in the States, typical quality of care/outcomes is on par with or less than that of other developed countries with UHC/SP schemes.

Just because the public supports MFA doesn't mean it is possible. The public also supports peace in the world but that is also a pipe dream. Did it ever occur to you that Pelosi knows that MFA isn't a viable health care solution? Hell, even California and Vermont realized it is not possible. And, another possibility is that Pelosi outright lied to these people. Maybe she wants their support to get more Democrats elected and then once in control she can stab them in the back.

To be clear, Pelosi is actively _lobbying against MFA_ to health insurers in an attempt to mollify them; presumably to keep their dolleros flowing.

It's not about whether it's possible or not (and the rest of the world's example would vehemently disagree on that front, as well as the relative ability to achieve MFA/SP vs 'world peace'), it's about Pelosi directly undermining MFA. Moreover, if we cannot get policy passed that has such overwhelming support essentially because a minority of plutocrats don't want it, that bodes exceedingly poorly for the country.

And no, I very much doubt Pelosi is breaking with tradition that has spanned essentially her entire career to play 3 dimensional chess here, particularly when she has never really supported MFA in the first place for precisely the reason so many of her big donors oppose it.

As to California, the MFA proposal there was spiked by Rendon, a notorious beneficiary and shill of health insurers, without any kind of hesitation or exploratory process (disingenuously claiming off-hand that there was no path to finance, when it's his job to examine financing in the first place; he didn't even try). In Vermont, a SP solution is unworkable at the state level due to the tiny size of its economy and thus ultimate negotiating power which the viability of SP is so contingent on.

 

[Lutherf]

Just food for thought, even with Medicare you still have to buy a supplemental insurance policy.

That's under the current system. If we go to a single payer system there will be no copays and no out of pocket for about half the country. The other half of the country will be responsible for varying levels excise taxes and supplemental payments to cover their costs. Health care will be a human right for those incapable of economic self sufficiency and a civic responsibility for everyone else.

 

[Surrealistik]

real health care reform probably won't happen until there's another economic collapse, IMO. when we're close to full employment, everyone is getting their for profit health insurance through their employers, and most feel secure with it until they have to use it for something serious. the time to push single payer will be when a lot of people are out of work because of the casino gamblers on Wall Street.

If the opinion of Joe Public mattered, it would have already been signed into law given latest polling has MFA support at around 76%. I guess what you mean is that opinion has to be backed by torches and pitchforks, and on that, you might well be correct unfortunately.

That having been said, at the moment we have 15.5% uninsured and underinsurance remains a huge problem for a large minority of those who are insured: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pr...-2016-more-two-five-marketplace-enrollees-and

 

[Surrealistik]

People are understandably skittish at the idea of seeing their health care downgraded or disappear altogether. It's too early to consider replacing private health insurance. Much smarter is to create a public option and give people the choice to move into that if they wish.

Much smarter according to who?

Also, if people were so skittish as you and Pelosi claim, that would be reflected by the polling, and said polling would not feature more than 70% support, including solid majority support from Republicans. Pelosi erroneously presumes to speak for the American people's comfort on the issue when their collective opinions entirely contradict her demonstrably bull**** assertions.

 

[Helix]

If the opinion of Joe Public mattered, it would have already been signed into law given latest polling has MFA support at around 76%. I guess what you mean is that opinion has to be backed by torches and pitchforks, and on that, you might well be correct unfortunately.

That having been said, at the moment we have 15.5% uninsured and underinsurance remains a huge problem for a large minority of those who are insured: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pr...-2016-more-two-five-marketplace-enrollees-and

very true. the reason that i think an economic collapse will be necessary to get it passed is because that's what it took to get the New Deal through. i would prefer to just enact it like every other first world country, but that could take several decades to happen. the Democrats will have to get organized and choose their timing carefully.

 

[Surrealistik]

very true. the reason that i think an economic collapse will be necessary to get it passed is because that's what it took to get the New Deal through. i would prefer to just enact it like every other first world country, but that could take several decades to happen. the Democrats will have to get organized and choose their timing carefully.

The popular support needed for MFA's passage in some form is certainly there, and if anything it's growing.

In light of this, I don't think it's necessary to flirt with the precipice of disaster if democracy and representation still mean anything in this country, but I'm certainly willing to concede that they don't in light of studies that have shown that in practice, the wealthy rule when their agenda comes into conflict with that of the plebeians ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ). We shall see. Pelosi's blatant skulduggery and kowtowing on behalf of her donors however, are certainly far from reassuring.

 

[ludin]

I haven't see any recent polling data that demonstrates a drop to 30% support. If you could link it, that would be greatly appreciated.
As to the need for supplemental/private insurance, yes, I'm sure wealthier people might want some (assuming their payers can negotiate a better price than out of pocket to justify it), but as mentioned above, most versions of MFA I'm aware of are more generous than Canadian healthcare coverage I'm intimately aware of as a dual citizen, and I have personally never felt the need for any kind of private supplemental. The market would certainly be limited, which is why health insurers obviously aren't keen on MFA as a point of policy.

https://www.apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con.

Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).

But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program. See what happens when people are told the truth?
They don't support your plan.

Lastly, concerning physicians getting paid less, they don't have to work for 40% less; even with substantial 20% price concessions, they would still be paid better than the vast majority of the rest of the developed world. The rest of your critiques are generally superficial or exaggerated. Despite excessive spending in the States, typical quality of care/outcomes is on par with or less than that of other developed countries with UHC/SP schemes.

Medicare pays 40% less than what private insurance does. So right now the only reasons that doctors take medicare patients is private insurance
subsidizes their medicare patients.

it doesn't matter what they are paid vs the rest of the world. you wouldn't work for 40% less so why should they?
you tell me that you want me to work but am going to pay me 40% less i will tell you to talk a long walk.

no they are not exaggerated. UHC systems have massive problems. One of the biggest is wait times and access to care.
waiting a year or more to see a doctor. England canceled a ton of procedures this year due to cost and lack of doctors.

America first and foremost has a huge lack of doctors.

 

[Surrealistik]

https://www.apnews.com/4516833e7fb644c9aa8bcc11048b2169

However, those numbers shifted dramatically when people were asked about the potential impact, pro and con.

Support increased when people were told “Medicare-for-all” would guarantee health insurance as a right (71 percent) and eliminate premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs (67 percent).

But if they were told that a government-run system could lead to delays in getting care or higher taxes, support plunged to 26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Support fell to 32 percent if it would threaten the current Medicare program. See what happens when people are told the truth?
They don't support your plan.

It seems per the structure of the study that they offered arguments for and against MFA separately. What would be of interest to me is a study that presented both sides to poll takers.

Also the drop in support over the issue of Medicare doesn't make sense to me... I mean existing MFA proposals are essentially Medicare but more comprehensive, both in terms of depth and breadth of coverage.

Moreover, it's notable that this polling baseline of 56% support varies significantly from other very recent polling that has the same baseline at around 70%

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/07/politico-harvard-poll-medicare-for-all-1061791

Another poll has baseline support at 54%, including in the event taxes are raised:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/06/politics/cnn-poll-healthcare-taxes/index.html

Medicare pays 40% less than what private insurance does. So right now the only reasons that doctors take medicare patients is private insurance
subsidizes their medicare patients.

it doesn't matter what they are paid vs the rest of the world. you wouldn't work for 40% less so why should they?
you tell me that you want me to work but am going to pay me 40% less i will tell you to talk a long walk.

The point I was making as you seem to have missed it is that there is a lot of margin for tamping down on salaries which doesn't have to amount to a 40% reduction (not sure where you're pulling this specific figure from anyways). Again, we could cut physician salaries by as much as 20% and they would still be among the very best paid in the world. A lot of the pressure for high salaries is attributable to the incredible debt burden doctors take on; personally I would be in support of tackling the cost of education in tandem.

no they are not exaggerated. UHC systems have massive problems. One of the biggest is wait times and access to care.
waiting a year or more to see a doctor. England canceled a ton of procedures this year due to cost and lack of doctors.

Issues with wait times are largely in the case of electives as UHC/SP systems run on triage based rationing rather than wallet based rationing. In terms of actual health outcomes, the real bottom line of health care quality, their results are overall comparable or better than ours (among comparably wealthy countries) at much less cost. That's the simple, indisputable fact; the US leads in certain cancer survival rates and that's about it. Moreover, in Britain's case specifically, Conservatives, ever the opponents of their NHS system have put it under pressure through a combination of austerity and incremental privatization.

 

[uptower]

This idea that 'The Democrats' (which seems to be a catch-all for anyone the Right doesn't like) are all in for MFA is ridiculous. 'The Left (a more accurate catch-all in this case) supports it, including the progressive wing of the Democratic party. However it will be a long time before the mainstream party accepts such radical change, because they're bought and paid for by lobbyists just like the GOP.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

This idea that 'The Democrats' (which seems to be a catch-all for anyone the Right doesn't like) are all in for MFA is ridiculous. 'The Left (a more accurate catch-all in this case) supports it, including the progressive wing of the Democratic party. However it will be a long time before the mainstream party accepts such radical change, because they're bought and paid for by lobbyists just like the GOP.

Political change is accomplished from working within the system.

 

[uptower]

Political change is accomplished from working within the system.

That seems the safe route, but I wouldn't call the new 'radical' members of congress outside the system either. They're now in a position to make change, but the 'go it slow' approach of the party at large may be due less to caution and more to allegiance.

 

[Moderate Right]

Drug, medical supply and finance companies probably wouldn't be too happy about it either, as SP typically involves _big_ price concessions in the case of the former two, and in the case of the latter, you're looking at the ongoing, albeit controlled demolition of a subset of the insurance industry that would probably not be good for certain investors.

If more megadonors supported MFA than opposed it, that fact certainly hasn't come to light in any meaningful way unfortunately, and I very much doubt Pelosi would oppose it as she does. Personally, I wish you were right, because if it that were the case, MFA would likely have been passed into law awhile ago, particularly when the public first started to show majoritarian support for it. I mean if a piece of policy is a mutual slam dunk with voters and donors alike, you would be an absolute fool not to pass it, whether Democrat or Republican.




Most MFA concepts I'm aware of involves coverage comprehensive to the point of not needing supplemental insurance; the plans I'm aware of are actually more generous than that in Canada, and you don't really need supplemental coverage here.




I haven't see any recent polling data that demonstrates a drop to 30% support. If you could link it, that would be greatly appreciated.

As to the need for supplemental/private insurance, yes, I'm sure wealthier people might want some (assuming their payers can negotiate a better price than out of pocket to justify it), but as mentioned above, most versions of MFA I'm aware of are more generous than Canadian healthcare coverage I'm intimately aware of as a dual citizen, and I have personally never felt the need for any kind of private supplemental. The market would certainly be limited, which is why health insurers obviously aren't keen on MFA as a point of policy.

Lastly, concerning physicians getting paid less, they don't have to work for 40% less; even with substantial 20% price concessions, they would still be paid better than the vast majority of the rest of the developed world. The rest of your critiques are generally superficial or exaggerated. Despite excessive spending in the States, typical quality of care/outcomes is on par with or less than that of other developed countries with UHC/SP schemes.




To be clear, Pelosi is actively _lobbying against MFA_ to health insurers in an attempt to mollify them; presumably to keep their dolleros flowing.

It's not about whether it's possible or not (and the rest of the world's example would vehemently disagree on that front, as well as the relative ability to achieve MFA/SP vs 'world peace'), it's about Pelosi directly undermining MFA. Moreover, if we cannot get policy passed that has such overwhelming support essentially because a minority of plutocrats don't want it, that bodes exceedingly poorly for the country.

And no, I very much doubt Pelosi is breaking with tradition that has spanned essentially her entire career to play 3 dimensional chess here, particularly when she has never really supported MFA in the first place for precisely the reason so many of her big donors oppose it.

As to California, the MFA proposal there was spiked by Rendon, a notorious beneficiary and shill of health insurers, without any kind of hesitation or exploratory process (disingenuously claiming off-hand that there was no path to finance, when it's his job to examine financing in the first place; he didn't even try). In Vermont, a SP solution is unworkable at the state level due to the tiny size of its economy and thus ultimate negotiating power which the viability of SP is so contingent on.

The uneducated dweebs shouldn't be allowed to expect MFA just because it sounds good to them. Voting only goes so far. Somebody somewhere has to overrule the nutjobs because getting rid of private insurers would be a total disaster for the economy of the US. Even California and Vermont were smart enough to see that it can't be done.

 

[Surrealistik]

Political change is accomplished from working within the system.

By secretly having your aides preach to the choir that MFA is bad, and essentially doing the lobbyist's job for them in a perverse, pathetic inversion of roles so you can keep those sweet health insurance industry dolleros flowing despite the obvious political liability of opposing an overwhelmingly popular idea.

 

[Surrealistik]

The uneducated dweebs shouldn't be allowed to expect MFA just because it sounds good to them. Voting only goes so far. Somebody somewhere has to overrule the nutjobs because getting rid of private insurers would be a total disaster for the economy of the US. Even California and Vermont were smart enough to see that it can't be done.

It can't be done in Vermont at the state level for precisely the reasons described earlier so that outcome is to be expected. It can be done in California as they have the economy of scale to support it, but again, Rendon pulled a political hit job on behalf of his donors to kill it; not out of fiscal prudence, or because it was impossible, which he made exactly no effort to determine, but because he was well funded by insurer interests that didn't want it. He is no less an industry shill than Lieberman was when he stonewalled Democrats attempts to add the public option to ACA (without any real pushback by Obama or the rest of the party).

Moreover, there is nothing 'crazy' about a system which has worked exceedingly well the developed world over, and at far less cost than our existing system. Further, any enactment of MFA would of course take place over a period of years to allow the economy to recalibrate and minimize any shock/fallout.

It is good to note that you think democracy and representation shouldn't reign on something as fundamental and important as healthcare though.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

By secretly having your aides preach to the choir that MFA is bad, and essentially doing the lobbyist's job for them in a perverse, pathetic inversion of roles so you can keep those sweet health insurance industry dolleros flowing despite the obvious political liability of opposing an overwhelmingly popular idea.

Political lobbying has always existed in one form or another.

You may not like it but Those insurance executives have a vested interest in determining what kind of legeslation is acceptable to them. It is also not a good idea to antagonize people who have the ability to spend millions of dollars in advertising that could potentially sink the proposed legislation in Congress.

Better to have them negotiating at the table then shutting them out of the debate and give them the opportunity to stab you in the back.

 

[Moderate Right]

It can't be done in Vermont at the state level for precisely the reasons described earlier so that outcome is to be expected. It can be done in California as they have the economy of scale to support it, but again, Rendon pulled a political hit job on behalf of his donors to kill it; not out of fiscal prudence, or because it was impossible, which he made exactly no effort to determine, but because he was well funded by insurer interests that didn't want it. He is no less an industry shill than Lieberman was when he stonewalled Democrats attempts to add the public option to ACA (without any real pushback by Obama or the rest of the party).

Moreover, there is nothing 'crazy' about a system which has worked exceedingly well the developed world over, and at far less cost than our existing system. Further, any enactment of MFA would of course take place over a period of years to allow the economy to recalibrate and minimize any shock/fallout.

It is good to note that you think democracy and representation shouldn't reign on something as fundamental and important as healthcare though.

As much as I literally hate Nancy Pelosi, she has her moments where she can be sane. Admittedly, there aren't many but this is one. The very fact that those on the left see her as a weak moderate gives me great concern for this country.

 

[Surrealistik]

Political lobbying has always existed in one form or another.

You may not like it but Those insurance executives have a vested interest in determining what kind of legeslation is acceptable to them. It is also not a good idea to antagonize people who have the ability to spend millions of dollars in advertising that could potentially sink the proposed legislation in Congress.

Better to have them negotiating at the table then shutting them out of the debate and give them the opportunity to stab you in the back.

There is no way that MFA ultimately ends well for health insurers barring a complete and total perversion of its concept; if you want to pass it, you have to antagonize them, thus if we're serious about this policy, we cannot try and court the people who will clearly lose the most.

In the end, you cant please everyone, and someone is going to get burned. If health insurers want to toss millions to the opposition so they can continue to profit off a criminally and historically inefficient healthcare system at the cost of the American people, let them. We have the better argument, and MFA support has been demonstrated to be a significant political asset capable of raising small donations to counteract this loss.

As much as I literally hate Nancy Pelosi, she has her moments where she can be sane. Admittedly, there aren't many but this is one. The very fact that those on the left see her as a weak moderate gives me great concern for this country.

There is nothing sane about getting on your knees to fellate insurers in defense of the status quo on health care despite it being an absolute disaster, and despite MFA being overwhelmingly popular for good reason per the example of every other wealthy, developed country (in the political context of which Pelosi is a blatant, unrepentant right winger).

 

[Moderate Right]

There is no way that MFA ultimately ends well for health insurers barring a complete and total perversion of its concept; if you want to pass it, you have to antagonize them, thus if we're serious about this policy, we cannot try and court the people who will clearly lose the most.

In the end, you cant please everyone, and someone is going to get burned. If health insurers want to toss millions to the opposition so they can continue to profit off a criminally and historically inefficient healthcare system at the cost of the American people, let them. We have the better argument, and MFA support has been demonstrated to be a significant political asset capable of raising small donations to counteract this lsos.



There is nothing sane about getting on your knees to fellate insurers in defense of the status quo on health care despite it being an absolute disaster, and despite MFA being overwhelmingly popular for good reason per the example of every other wealthy, developed country (in the political context of which Pelosi is a blatant, unrepentant right winger).

In the end you have to look reality in the face, something that Democratic socialists can't do. MFA is nothing but a fantasy that will never happen. We have a much better chance of Howard Schultz or a Libertarian becoming president and you have a much better chance of winning the lottery.

 

[ludin]

It seems per the structure of the study that they offered arguments for and against MFA separately. What would be of interest to me is a study that presented both sides to poll takers.

Also the drop in support over the issue of Medicare doesn't make sense to me... I mean existing MFA proposals are essentially Medicare but more comprehensive, both in terms of depth and breadth of coverage.

Moreover, it's notable that this polling baseline of 56% support varies significantly from other very recent polling that has the same baseline at around 70%

It makes perfect sense as to why people disagree with it when you tell them the truth instead of the fictional fantasy that you guys spread.
you tell people that they are going to pay more get less coverage and have to wait and might not be able to see the doctor they want of course
they are not going to like it.

this is the exact reason government sucks at healthcare.

The point I was making as you seem to have missed it is that there is a lot of margin for tamping down on salaries which doesn't have to amount to a 40% reduction (not sure where you're pulling this specific figure from anyways). Again, we could cut physician salaries by as much as 20% and they would still be among the very best paid in the world. A lot of the pressure for high salaries is attributable to the incredible debt burden doctors take on; personally I would be in support of tackling the cost of education in tandem.

No i didn't miss your point. your point was foolish to begin with. You wouldn't work for 20-40% less neither are they. They don't care what the rest of the world makes
that is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. They have bills to pay, people to pay, insurance to pay etc ... they can't afford the cut. there is a reason that the doctors in my area
have reduced and stopped taken medicaid and medicare patients. it is impossible for them to work and make money.

You cut your own salary by 20% first since you think it is ok to cut other peoples.

Issues with wait times are largely in the case of electives as UHC/SP systems run on triage based rationing rather than wallet based rationing. In terms of actual health outcomes, the real bottom line of health care quality, their results are overall comparable or better than ours (among comparably wealthy countries) at much less cost. That's the simple, indisputable fact; the US leads in certain cancer survival rates and that's about it. Moreover, in Britain's case specifically, Conservatives, ever the opponents of their NHS system have put it under pressure through a combination of austerity and incremental privatization.

No it was rationing. No they aren't. the US is first when it comes to cancer, heart disease and a lot of other things that other countries struggle with.
i consider not being able to see a doctor for a year a serious problem. you might not have an issue with it but i do.

 

[ludin]

There is no way that MFA ultimately ends well for health insurers barring a complete and total perversion of its concept; if you want to pass it, you have to antagonize them, thus if we're serious about this policy, we cannot try and court the people who will clearly lose the most.

In the end, you cant please everyone, and someone is going to get burned. If health insurers want to toss millions to the opposition so they can continue to profit off a criminally and historically inefficient healthcare system at the cost of the American people, let them. We have the better argument, and MFA support has been demonstrated to be a significant political asset capable of raising small donations to counteract this loss.



There is nothing sane about getting on your knees to fellate insurers in defense of the status quo on health care despite it being an absolute disaster, and despite MFA being overwhelmingly popular for good reason per the example of every other wealthy, developed country (in the political context of which Pelosi is a blatant, unrepentant right winger).

as i already proved it is only popular when you LIE about it.
when you tell people the truth they overwhelmingly disapprove.

hmm interesting.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Current party leadership is unlikely to be in power after 2020.....change is coming....what they say they want to do now has low relevance long term.

 

[Surrealistik]

In the end you have to look reality in the face, something that Democratic socialists can't do. MFA is nothing but a fantasy that will never happen. We have a much better chance of Howard Schultz or a Libertarian becoming president and you have a much better chance of winning the lottery.

The reality is that the Overton window has shifted dramatically to the left on this issue, and it's not going back anytime soon, never is a long time, and MFA's support, both among politicos and the general population is increasing, not decreasing. I personally wouldn't take that bet, but you do you.

It makes perfect sense as to why people disagree with it when you tell them the truth instead of the fictional fantasy that you guys spread.
you tell people that they are going to pay more get less coverage and have to wait and might not be able to see the doctor they want of course
they are not going to like it.

this is the exact reason government sucks at healthcare.

There is nothing that makes sense about being against the replacement of a program that features _less_ coverage in terms of both depth and breadth.

The idea that people are on the average going to 'pay more get less coverage' per MFA is literally fictional fantasy.

Moreover, there are other polls that show that MFA still has majoritarian support whether or not taxes increase.

The Kaiser poll is but one of several with outlier baseline support well below the norm of others, and moreover, does not specify support when both sides of the arguments are addressed.

No i didn't miss your point. your point was foolish to begin with. You wouldn't work for 20-40% less neither are they. They don't care what the rest of the world makes
that is 100% irrelevant to the discussion. They have bills to pay, people to pay, insurance to pay etc ... they can't afford the cut. there is a reason that the doctors in my area
have reduced and stopped taken medicaid and medicare patients. it is impossible for them to work and make money.

Unless you're living in say NY or another insanely expensive city, there's no way you're finding it difficult to get by on $230k+, big student loans or not. Just not a thing; anecdote isn't evidence (nor do I believe that you actually consulted with these doctors). Moreover, one of the major elements of MFA is tramping down on the other attendant input costs of healthcare, from supplies to drugs. Beyond that, addressing the educational costs doctors are typically burdened with would help significantly. As a doctor, if part of the deal is that your operating expenses become much lower, then maybe you wouldn't be so averse to either salary cuts, or a freeze on salary increases that ultimately works out to this n the long run (i.e. a graduated phase in).

You cut your own salary by 20% first since you think it is ok to cut other peoples.

As a trader in currencies and commercial real estate, the majority of my money is performance based rather than being fixed salary. That said, I could survive a 20% cut and continue to live comfortably (as can most doctors) so sure.

No it was rationing. No they aren't. the US is first when it comes to cancer, heart disease and a lot of other things that other countries struggle with.
i consider not being able to see a doctor for a year a serious problem. you might not have an issue with it but i do.

The US is first when it comes to certain types of cancer (not all). I don't see evidence of it having the best outcomes in the world RE: heart disease but feel free to share it if you can. In general, where the US has an edge, it is slight and specific. Even if we were to assume that the US outperforms in every thing you described, it's certainly not worth paying about double per capita.

Second, please provide some evidence that people systemically and as a rule aren't getting help commensurate with their need; then in the event you do, reconcile that with the fact that more than 15% of the US population is completely uninsured, and ~20% of those who do have coverage are under-insured.

 

[Surrealistik]

as i already proved it is only popular when you LIE about it.
when you tell people the truth they overwhelmingly disapprove.

hmm interesting.

Except that's not the case, (I mean, asking someone if they're in support of MFA without any qualifiers is not 'lying') and you haven't really proven anything. We don't for example have poll results that demonstrate support levels when both arguments for and against are provided to the same taker (just one or the other).

I further just provided a poll where baseline support was 54% after assuming tax increases, nevermind the abnormally low baseline support of the Kaiser poll vs every other poll currently out there.