Healthcare for all

[mississippiboy]

Don’t you think that the military’s healthcare system proves that universal healthcare is not only possible but advantageous for us all? Putting every American on the same universal healthcare system would save money, create jobs, increase wages, and make our country healthier. It seems so obvious to me. What am I missing? Besides the huge amounts of money spent lobbying against it, what reason is there not to provide healthcare for everyone? Of course taxes would go up, but those costs would be more than offset by the savings of not paying insurance premiums and medical bills. The people who advance medicine won’t try as hard if they can’t charge a fortune? I think those people will still push for cares and treatments. Everything is not about money. We push for advancements because it’s human nature to reach for the stars. Don’t you think?

 

[bythoughts]

The objection to universal healthcare is that it's communist - which of course is true. And that would be a powerful reason to reject it .... if capitalism worked. Unfortunately, the reality we have is that "capitalist" health care involves giving out patent monopolies, then other stranger regulatory monopolies, to almost everyone making a product. Hospitals are owned by vast monopolies in each region. Though the current administration proposed them at one point, there still are no real price lists, because no two people pay the same price. Shopping around for a bargain is a daydream ... you can't even be assured to get the care your insurance covers, rather than a "drive-by doctor" who takes your whole life savings by dropping into the room to sign a form.

I mean, we have to face reality here. Capitalism is a noble idea in theory, but it is a ham-fisted system of arbitrary bureaucratic authority in practice. Communism isn't the best possible system for health care -- it's just the best system that we have, which works well day to day in many countries around the world.

 

[Blue Dog]

The US should look at the Singapore model and tweak it:

The system, known as the 3Ms, comprises the following programs:

• MediShield Life, a universal basic health care insurance, is mandatory for citizens and permanent residents and provides lifelong protection against large hospital bills and select costly outpatient treatments. It was launched in 2015 to replace MediShield, an opt-out catastrophic illness insurance scheme.
• MediSave, a national medical savings scheme, helps cover out-of-pocket payments. Personal and employer salary contributions (8%–10.5%, depending on age) to MediSave accounts are mandatory for all working citizens and permanent residents. These tax-exempt, interest-bearing (currently 4% to 5%) accounts can be used to pay for family members’ health care expenses.1
• MediFund is the government’s safety net for needy Singaporeans who cannot cover their out-of-pocket expenses, even with MediSave.

Singapore

By Lee Chien Earn, National University of Singapore Singapore has achieved universal health coverage through a mixed financing system. The country’s public statutory insurance system, MediShield Life, covers large bills arising from hospital care and certain outpatient treatments. Patients pay...

www.commonwealthfund.org

 

[aociswundumho]

Don’t you think that the military’s healthcare system proves that universal healthcare is not only possible but advantageous for us all?

The military's healthcare system only "works" because it serves a relatively small group - less than 1% of the country - whose costs are paid for by the other 99%. It's not a universal model at all. It's a niche system heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Scale that up to 330 million people, and the costs, bureaucracy, and rationing would explode.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Don’t you think that the military’s healthcare system proves that universal healthcare is not only possible but advantageous for us all? Putting every American on the same universal healthcare system would save money, create jobs, increase wages, and make our country healthier. It seems so obvious to me. What am I missing? Besides the huge amounts of money spent lobbying against it, what reason is there not to provide healthcare for everyone? Of course taxes would go up, but those costs would be more than offset by the savings of not paying insurance premiums and medical bills. The people who advance medicine won’t try as hard if they can’t charge a fortune? I think those people will still push for cares and treatments. Everything is not about money. We push for advancements because it’s human nature to reach for the stars. Don’t you think?

That (bolded above) seems to ignore reality. Before you decide that (all?) folks (businesses?) providing medical care goods/services will be either public of non-profit, perhaps you should consider that’s not currently the case even for “the military’s healthcare system”.

The following bill, called “Medicare for All”, which seems close to what you’re advocating:

This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

Only public or nonprofit institutions may participate. Nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities may participate.

Patients may choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Health insurers may not sell health insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under this bill. Insurers may sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

H.R.676 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

Summary of H.R.676 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

www.congress.gov

 

[aociswundumho]

The objection to universal healthcare is that it's communist - which of course is true. And that would be a powerful reason to reject it .... if capitalism worked. Unfortunately, the reality we have is that "capitalist" health care involves giving out patent monopolies, then other stranger regulatory monopolies, to almost everyone making a product. Hospitals are owned by vast monopolies in each region. Though the current administration proposed them at one point, there still are no real price lists, because no two people pay the same price. Shopping around for a bargain is a daydream ... you can't even be assured to get the care your insurance covers, rather than a "drive-by doctor" who takes your whole life savings by dropping into the room to sign a form.

All of that is because of government intervention into the healthcare market, yet it's the fault of "capitalism". There are literally millions of distinct markets in the world. Take any one of them, and add the amount of government intervention that we have in the healthcare market, and you will get the same bad outcome.

 

[bythoughts]

All of that is because of government intervention into the healthcare market, yet it's the fault of "capitalism". There are literally millions of distinct markets in the world. Take any one of them, and add the amount of government intervention that we have in the healthcare market, and you will get the same bad outcome.

I would support libertarian reforms also. Let's start with the basics: it's my health care, so if I want to walk into a pharmacy and buy any drug - and I don't just mean marijuana or cocaine! - then I should be able to just buy it. We can have that sort of a private market even along side universal health care. A lot of people take no joy at all in routine 6-month appointments for lifelong conditions.

 

[Rogue Valley]

If it was up to Republicans in Congress, there would be no such things as Obamacare, Medicare, or Medicaid. (except for them and theirs of course).

Everything would be paid up front and out of pocket.

Medical insurance offered by some employers/unions would exist. But monthly premiums and co-pays would remain onerous.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would support libertarian reforms also. Let's start with the basics: it's my health care, so if I want to walk into a pharmacy and buy any drug - and I don't just mean marijuana or cocaine! - then I should be able to just buy it. We can have that sort of a private market even along side universal health care. A lot of people take no joy at all in routine 6-month appointments for lifelong conditions.

Many lack your advanced medical knowledge and prefer to have medical care professionals diagnose and help treat/manage their current medical care needs.

 

[dmpi]

The US should look at the Singapore model and tweak it:

The system, known as the 3Ms, comprises the following programs:

• MediShield Life, a universal basic health care insurance, is mandatory for citizens and permanent residents and provides lifelong protection against large hospital bills and select costly outpatient treatments. It was launched in 2015 to replace MediShield, an opt-out catastrophic illness insurance scheme.
• MediSave, a national medical savings scheme, helps cover out-of-pocket payments. Personal and employer salary contributions (8%–10.5%, depending on age) to MediSave accounts are mandatory for all working citizens and permanent residents. These tax-exempt, interest-bearing (currently 4% to 5%) accounts can be used to pay for family members’ health care expenses.1
• MediFund is the government’s safety net for needy Singaporeans who cannot cover their out-of-pocket expenses, even with MediSave.

Singapore

By Lee Chien Earn, National University of Singapore Singapore has achieved universal health coverage through a mixed financing system. The country’s public statutory insurance system, MediShield Life, covers large bills arising from hospital care and certain outpatient treatments. Patients pay...

www.commonwealthfund.org

We should also follow the Singapore model for drug use and drug addiction.

 

[lynnwinslow]

We should also follow the Singapore model for drug use and drug addiction.

What healthcare do you have?

 

[craig]

Many lack your advanced medical knowledge and prefer to have medical care professionals diagnose and help treat/manage their current medical care needs.

How is that prevented? You can still get a prescription from a Doctor. You just buy the drugs directly from a free market. (Even from Mexico in the mail.) This takes away all those middle men that collude with insurance companies that make our drug prices so high. If you have insurance then they can reimburse you directly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How is that prevented? You can still get a prescription from a Doctor. You just buy the drugs directly from a free market. (Even from Mexico in the mail.) This takes away all those middle men that collude with insurance companies that make our drug prices so high. If you have insurance then they can reimburse you directly.

You left out the following:

Let's start with the basics: it's my health care, so if I want to walk into a pharmacy and buy any drug - and I don't just mean marijuana or cocaine! - then I should be able to just buy it.

A lot of people take no joy at all in routine 6-month appointments for lifelong conditions.

His desire was to get rid of the requirement for prescriptions and having a doctor involved.

 

[dmpi]

I would support libertarian reforms also. Let's start with the basics: it's my health care, so if I want to walk into a pharmacy and buy any drug - and I don't just mean marijuana or cocaine! - then I should be able to just buy it. We can have that sort of a private market even along side universal health care. A lot of people take no joy at all in routine 6-month appointments for lifelong conditions.

I agree. In first line defense, care should be provided by a free on-line AI doctor and one should have complete access to non-narcotic drugs. You go to other countries you'll be surprised what you can buy over the counter at the drug store. For serious stuff, yes you should see a real doctor.

 

[bythoughts]

Many lack your advanced medical knowledge and prefer to have medical care professionals diagnose and help treat/manage their current medical care needs.

People should get professional guidance, yes. They should also stay away from Black Diamond ski slopes and avoid walking around Washington at 3 AM.

The problem is that people who love capitalism, love a myth in their mind. They think it's all kids setting up lemonade stands. They ignore that all the companies are relying on exclusivity. That you wouldn't even think about buying stock in a company that doesn't have a bunch of patents or a lock on a marketplace. That every decade there are new doctrines like "patents on business models" to make the marketplace even more regulated. It reminds me a little of how communist parties in the 1980s would say that they want communism - but without gulags and walls and censorship, a pure and ideal communism.

The difference is, 1980s communists had real things to point at - Scandinavian countries with socialistic support nets, communes on the ground. By contrast, the Libertarians can't even keep their own party from being an extension of the Republicans, working to make fossil fuel use mandatory because Big Oil is rich and money is capital and this is Capital-ism, plain and simple. The word doesn't even have anything in it about a free market. And there's not a capitalist free marketplace in medical products or services in any country in the world!

So no, sorry. If communism failed, capitalism has failed too.

 

[ttwtt78640]

People should get professional guidance, yes.

Which includes having prescriptions in order to get many medications. You seemed to object to that.

 

[bythoughts]

His desire was to get rid of the requirement for prescriptions and having a doctor involved.

Craig said "you can still get a prescription" - i.e. a set of recommended instructions to go by. The requirement for prescriptions is something else.

Now some will say that lazy people (by which they mean poor, overworked people) will skip the doctor and do something foolish they saw on the internet. By putting crowned heads in charge of who is allowed to permit so-and-so to recommend such-and-such drug, they will head off the foolishness of crowds and make a rationally designed system of health care. And in the past I always had to argue that this was no guarantee of anything, because there still is the risk the person in charge could be a lunatic. It was a tough sell.

Then Robert Kennedy was appointed! Yeah, you're going to hand over 8% of your income to be blessed by ... THAT????????

 

[craig]

You left out the following:





His desire was to get rid of the requirement for prescriptions and having a doctor involved.

You would still have the choice to have a Doctor advise you. It would just not be required. Requirements create barriers which makes monopolies possible and that ruins a free market.

 

[rahl]

The military's healthcare system only "works" because it serves a relatively small group - less than 1% of the country - whose costs are paid for by the other 99%. It's not a universal model at all. It's a niche system heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Scale that up to 330 million people, and the costs, bureaucracy, and rationing would explode.

It would be cheaper than the current private for profit system. As evidenced by every other nation with single payer. It provided better care at a fraction of the cost of our system.

 

[Taylor]

Putting every American on the same universal healthcare system would save money, create jobs, increase wages, and make our country healthier.

How so?

 

[Visbek]

Don’t you think that the military’s healthcare system proves that universal healthcare is not only possible but advantageous for us all?

Yes. So does Medicare and Medicaid. So do examples of nations around the world. All of those systems pay less for better outcomes than the bastardized US health care lack-of-a-coherent-system.

Granted, universal healthcare is not always perfect. But it's pretty damned clear it is better than the disastrous capitalist system America has set up. Treating illness like a profit center is as impractical as it is immoral.

Sadly, that's been evident for decades, and conservatives prefer to suffer and die from a lack of care, and let others suffer and die from a lack of care, rather than accept the evidence.

 

[ttwtt78640]

How so?

By having government imposed price controls.

This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

Only public or nonprofit institutions may participate. Nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities may participate.

Patients may choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Health insurers may not sell health insurance that duplicates the benefits provided under this bill. Insurers may sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

H.R.676 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

Summary of H.R.676 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act

www.congress.gov

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The biggest argument against any kind of universal health care:

IT IS SOCIALISM!!
Means EVERY first world nation except the US is socialist. I mean, that is what Americans are being told by Fox, Rightwing media and Trump - so of course it must be true.

Meanwhile...............

Report: U.S. spends the most on health but outcomes are among the worst​

Report: U.S. spends the most on health but outcomes are among the worst

A new report shows it's beyond time for journalists and voters to hold politicians accountable for the poor quality of America's health care.

healthjournalism.org

Yeah, BUT................................ universal health care is SOCIALISM!!

 

[Threegoofs]

The military's healthcare system only "works" because it serves a relatively small group - less than 1% of the country - whose costs are paid for by the other 99%. It's not a universal model at all. It's a niche system heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Scale that up to 330 million people, and the costs, bureaucracy, and rationing would explode.

Totally agree.

If we did this, we'd have to suffer through better healthcare outcomes and substantially lower cost like the rest of the world.

That would be tragic, especially for some companies profits.

 

[aociswundumho]

Yes. So does Medicare and Medicaid. So do examples of nations around the world. All of those systems pay less for better outcomes than the bastardized US health care lack-of-a-coherent-system.

It's regulated capitalism.

Granted, universal healthcare is not always perfect. But it's pretty damned clear it is better than the disastrous capitalist system America has set up. Treating illness like a profit center is as impractical as it is immoral.

Therefore you must support outlawing private, for-profit healthcare and private, for profit health insurance, correct? You are clearly stating that the only moral way healthcare can be provided is by the state.