• Sen. Sanders unveils Universal Healthcare bill
    105 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52678260]Who will vote against it? Everyone. What will it do to their careers? Nothing.[/QUOTE] think of it like those 60 or so votes to repeal obamacare, except we have an actual plan with an actual bill and doesn't instantly destroy the healthcare of tens of millions of people
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52678237]But I do have to pay if I want a private or semi-private room. I do have to pay for my prescrptions. I have to pay for eye care. I have to pay for dental.[/QUOTE] It always struck me as really odd how vision and dental are arbitrarily separated from the rest of healthcare. Imagine if you had to pay for a stomach doctor or a bone doctor or something like that.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52677562]I'm sure ripping funding out of bullshit agencies that only serve to erode our civil liberties while giving us nothing in retuen would significantly help. TSA, NSA are two big ones I'd love to see mugged to pay for singlepayer healthcare.[/QUOTE] ripping funding out of abusive agencies doesn't cause them magically become less abusive. the prison system is rampant with abuse, but cutting funding to it would just cause further abusive cost cutting measures like twice-a-day meals and tent-prisons.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;52677482]Considering we still budget more annually than any other country on the [I]planet[/I] to healthcare, there is no financial reason why this can't work. Re-allocate what is being used. I will [I]gladly[/I] pay the tax to support it, it just needs to fucking happen.[/QUOTE] The problem with healthcare spending in the United States isn't on the insurance side, it's on the service side. Eg because fee-for-service is a thing in the United States (whereas most other countries have something like bundled payments as standard), it means that Doctors are encouraged to provide unnecessary tests, over-treatment etc, because that gets them more money. Also, the US is seen by pharmaceutical companies as a place to make up for the losses that they make when selling their drugs for cheaper overseas. Sure, the US could have universal healthcare. But if it does not address those service-side issues, it's going to be really damn expensive to run. Especially because there would be little to no exposure to costs, for the patients.
[QUOTE=BF;52679008]The problem with healthcare spending in the United States isn't on the insurance side, it's on the service side. Eg because fee-for-service is a thing in the United States (whereas most other countries have something like bundled payments as standard), it means that Doctors are encouraged to provide unnecessary tests, over-treatment etc, because that gets them more money. Also, the US is seen by pharmaceutical companies as a place to make up for the losses that they make when selling their drugs for cheaper overseas. Sure, the US could have universal healthcare. [B]But if it does not address those service-side issues, it's going to be really damn expensive to run.[/B] Especially because there would be little to no exposure to costs, for the patients.[/QUOTE] When the government becomes the monopoly provider of basic health insurance, it gains a massive amount of leverage, plus the existing power to write law and policy, over health care pricing.
Plot twist: Trump actually pushes his republican colleagues to shove this healthcare plan through so he can use it to remove obamacare and then take credit for fixing Americas healthcare system
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52678832]It always struck me as really odd how vision and dental are arbitrarily separated from the rest of healthcare. Imagine if you had to pay for a stomach doctor or a bone doctor or something like that.[/QUOTE] I mean you have to pay for specialists for a lot of things. I have to pay extra to see a gastroenterologist and extra to see a sports medicine doctor whenever I pull muscles in my legs because my GP isn't great at specifying things like that.
[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52677563]I live in one of the States with the lowest tax rate in the country and the amount of "No new taxes!" signs I'm seeing regarding raising taxes to fix our shitty roads leads me to believe a ridiculous amount of people don't actually understand what taxes do and just think it's "taking away their money"[/QUOTE] And I live in a state with the highest taxes and we have the worst roads in the country.
[QUOTE=da space core;52679358]Plot twist: Trump actually pushes his republican colleagues to shove this healthcare plan through so he can use it to remove obamacare and then take credit for fixing Americas healthcare system[/QUOTE] That would be a lot to think about if Trump actually pushes for universal healthcare.
Some problems that I don't see being addressed: 1) How are we going to solve the doctor shortage? This will add a lot of people to the insurance rolls, increase usage of medical services, and decrease profitability for doctors. We are already on track to have massive issues with this in our current system. Lowering the incentives is going to make it worse, faster. 2) Why would anyone trust the feds to control costs and provide good quality care when they have utterly failed to do so with medicare, medicaid, and the VA already? I remember when people were claiming that the VA was a great example of US government run healthcare... until the huge scandal about people dying while waiting for care entered the limelight. 3) "“You’re going to the same private doctor that you went to. You’re going to go to the same hospital that you went to. The only difference is instead of having a Blue Cross Blue Shield [insurance] card – and having to argue with your insurance company – you’re going to have a Medicare for All card. That’s it.” This quote is just plain BS. There's zero guarantee that your doctor will continue to take the same patients, patient loads, etc. when their entire incentive structure is totally flipped upside down. In fact, there's a good chance that lots of doctors will just retire as their income is halved overnight. Assuming they don't make private insurance illegal, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of doctors just take private insurance. That is already happening now, with lots of doctors dropping their medicare patients due to the much lower compensation. 4) Realize that this bill is a political tool, not an actual plan. It doesn't include any costs or ways to pay for it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52679970]Some problems that I don't see being addressed: 1) How are we going to solve the doctor shortage? This will add a lot of people to the insurance rolls, increase usage of medical services, and decrease profitability for doctors. We are already on track to have massive issues with this in our current system. Lowering the incentives is going to make it worse, faster. 2) Why would anyone trust the feds to control costs and provide good quality care when they have utterly failed to do so with medicare, medicaid, and the VA already? I remember when people were claiming that the VA was a great example of US government run healthcare... until the huge scandal about people dying while waiting for care entered the limelight. 3) "“You’re going to the same private doctor that you went to. You’re going to go to the same hospital that you went to. The only difference is instead of having a Blue Cross Blue Shield [insurance] card – and having to argue with your insurance company – you’re going to have a Medicare for All card. That’s it.” This quote is just plain BS. There's zero guarantee that your doctor will continue to take the same patients, patient loads, etc. when their entire incentive structure is totally flipped upside down. In fact, there's a good chance that lots of doctors will just retire as their income is halved overnight. Assuming they don't make private insurance illegal, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of doctors just take private insurance. That is already happening now, with lots of doctors dropping their medicare patients due to the much lower compensation. 4) Realize that this bill is a political tool, not an actual plan. It doesn't include any costs or ways to pay for it.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676/text#toc-H87F6F4A93DE34DF5B9F91798A4C464A7[/URL] Kind of includes how it intends to pay for this. Also ayy lmao "(E) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions." FTT is back boys! (Sanders in the campaign wanted it at twice the value Sweden used) [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_financial_transaction_tax[/URL] Along with the bad assumptions about why our healthcare costs are so expensive. There's a lot of very complicated factors that go into that. Our heavy usage of specialists, high density of stuff like MRI machines, much higher usage of prescription drugs, shitty social service spending are a few of them. Here's a few sources on this: [URL]http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.198.6512&rep=rep1&type=pdf[/URL] - compares pharmaceutical costs [URL]http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective[/URL] - goes over a lot of the other factors I mentioned. Honestly he'd probably be better off pushing other, more achievable and less difficult reforms. One quite big problem with our healthcare system is the disparity of medicaid between states, if you live in California, medicaid is great and California's outcomes look very good compared to most European countries. If you live in Texas? Hahhahahh no medicaid for you. And then in the long run, push for a system like Germany's which is effective a couple steps away from what the ACA gave us. Although that too is probably not achievable with the current administration, as it's almost always Republican state offenders doing this, and boy will they kick up a state's rights fuss about how their poor really shouldn't have healthcare. It's more achievable than a bill that fucking makes abortion free for everyone in the country at least.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52680067]Although that too is probably not achievable with the current administration, as it's almost always Republican state offenders doing this, and boy will they kick up a state's rights fuss about how their poor really shouldn't have healthcare. It's more achievable than a bill that fucking makes abortion free for everyone in the country at least.[/QUOTE] I'm of the opinion that once you argue against states' rights when they're trying to implement things you don't like (such as gay marriage), you lose the power to argue for states' rights to block things you don't like (medical coverage to everyone). Too bad it doesn't actually work like that. Universal health care can work. America's just built to not let it work because it's way more profitable to maintain the status quo instead of delivering services through an uninterested party. An uninterested party is always better than one with personal interest in the outcome when dealing with things like health care.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52680083]I'm of the opinion that once you argue against states' rights when they're trying to implement things you don't like (such as gay marriage), you lose the power to argue for states' rights to block things you don't like (medical coverage to everyone). Too bad it doesn't actually work like that. Universal health care can work. America's just built to not let it work because it's way more profitable to maintain the status quo instead of delivering services through an uninterested party. An uninterested party is always better than one with personal interest in the outcome when dealing with things like health care.[/QUOTE] Universal Healthcare =/ Single Payer. Only canada and taiwan have systems like sanders is proposing; and even they aren't as generous as this. Most countries use hybrid systems that still result in universal coverage. I'm not even saying that single-payer is inherently a horrible idea. This plan is just horribly thought out and the sheer lack of understanding Sanders demonstrates about why healthcare is the way it is makes me very doubtful of it's applicability. Not everything is a conspiracy. And that's not even getting into the practical parts of paying for it, getting Americans to approve of the taxes, whether the taxes are good, etc..
I can already tell at least one of my Conservative friends isn't going to like it, because: 1) Bernie, and 2) He constantly uses the VA as an example of why "government insurance" doesn't work. Which is funny in a way, because Bernie's tried to raise funding for that, too, but they won't do it.
[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52680118]I can already tell at least one of my Conservative friends isn't going to like it, because: 1) Bernie, and 2) He constantly uses the VA as an example of why "government insurance" doesn't work. Which is funny in a way, because Bernie's tried to raise funding for that, too, but they won't do it.[/QUOTE] [URL]https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-bill[/URL] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans%27_Access_to_Care_through_Choice,_Accountability,_and_Transparency_Act_of_2014[/url] they did though
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52680135][URL]https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-passes-sanders-mccain-veterans-bill[/URL] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veterans%27_Access_to_Care_through_Choice,_Accountability,_and_Transparency_Act_of_2014[/url] they did though[/QUOTE] Guess I missed that, last I heard he tried to pass legislation to increase funding for veteran care programs and congress was like "lol with wat money".
[QUOTE=Sableye;52678689]think of it like those 60 or so votes to repeal obamacare, except we have an actual plan with an actual bill and doesn't instantly destroy the healthcare of tens of millions of people[/QUOTE] it will also (theoretically) induce a recession as insurance companies begin to collapse or restructure, putting many Americans out of work. I want universal healthcare - but that's a major hurdle to overcome. That's excellent ammunition for opponents of the bill.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;52678892]ripping funding out of abusive agencies doesn't cause them magically become less abusive. the prison system is rampant with abuse, but cutting funding to it would just cause further abusive cost cutting measures like twice-a-day meals and tent-prisons.[/QUOTE] Bit of a difference between the prison system...which is fucked up so badly it isnt suitable to discuss in this thread...and the TSA/NSA. Mug those two agencies and they quickly find themselves too short on resources to continue to assfuck our civil liberties and do what they exist to do. It solves two problems at once. They dont have the resources to unjustly invade our privacy, steal our iPads, ransack our emails, etc etc, and we get single payer with a slightly easier tax burden. Win win. You sure as shit wont get the PATRIOT act repealed normally, so this is the next best thing.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52677456]I don't see why an optional government funded basic health insurance plan wouldn't work. For all those people who prefer private insurance, they have the option of opting out and saving the government some money.[/QUOTE] Because the people who would prefer to opt out aren't upset that they might lose their private insurance, it's that those filthy poor people will be getting health care from their taxes. On top of that, the health insurance companies that are making a [I]lot[/I] of money would be losing out, and we can't have that, now can we? Insert "we'll be losing jobs" argument here.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;52680661]Reminds me of a certain useless contruction project whose funds would be better off somewhere else.[/QUOTE] The nice thing about the wall is with how long they're taking to start the damn thing, so little money will have been spent that by the time a new administration is in they'll be able to just gut it. Building shit like that takes awhile.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;52680491]it will also (theoretically) induce a recession as insurance companies begin to collapse or restructure, putting many Americans out of work. I want universal healthcare - but that's a major hurdle to overcome. That's excellent ammunition for opponents of the bill.[/QUOTE] This is why I think the US will never have better healthcare than you have now. This isn't a dig at you, that's a genuine problem, but the simple fact it would be ammo against an actual improvement is damning
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52681336]This is why I think the US will never have better healthcare than you have now. This isn't a dig at you, that's a genuine problem, but the simple fact it would be ammo against an actual improvement is damning[/QUOTE] Not really. It just means you don't launch a massive dangerous overhaul that throws out nearly everything. It's what the ACA and Hillary Clinton were attempting to do. Gradually push us to universal coverage. [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681334]The doctor shortage falls onto medical schools and their absolutely INSANE levels of "why should we let you in". We're talking if you don't have 5 years of experience+ a 4.0 GPA + club president of 4 clubs + volunteer all of your free time with homeless people you're not getting in. Its absolutely insane. Also most people dont go to medical school for money, in fact most unspecialized doctors are middle class. The big bucks lie in specialization, which most people don't do.[/QUOTE] I thought it was opposite. Medical school enrollment has been up but students becoming general physicians are down. Also primary care physicians make 200k a year on average. That's not middle class. While students might not primarily be motivated by money, it's a big factor. You're having these people go through k-12 education, get a 4 year degree, and then do 7-11 years more of difficult and intense education. Followed by what is one of the most stressfull, active (you arent done studying hah,) high stakes job in the world. It seems much more like a supply problem of medical schools anyways. The number of graduates has pretty much always been climbing, and most schools fill their classes. If you have an overwhelming amount of people applying compared to the amount of students you can take, of course you'll try to find some way rule applicants out.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52678832]It always struck me as really odd how vision and dental are arbitrarily separated from the rest of healthcare. Imagine if you had to pay for a stomach doctor or a bone doctor or something like that.[/QUOTE] Dental is largely cosmetic though. If something requires oral surgery because it's a health issue, it will often fall under medical.
[QUOTE=laserpanda;52681424]Dental is largely cosmetic though. If something requires oral surgery because it's a health issue, it will often fall under medical.[/QUOTE] ya but bad teeth do lead to other medical issues down the road, so as far as preventative measures go, health plans may cover it just to prevent much more expensive oral surgery im talking about things like braces and straightening though, which are expensive but do serve more than just a cosmetic purpose [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681334]The doctor shortage falls onto medical schools and their absolutely INSANE levels of "why should we let you in". We're talking if you don't have 5 years of experience+ a 4.0 GPA + club president of 4 clubs + volunteer all of your free time with homeless people you're not getting in. Its absolutely insane. Also most people dont go to medical school for money, in fact most unspecialized doctors are middle class. The big bucks lie in specialization, which most people don't do.[/QUOTE] ironically the easiest way to get into medical school I found is to have a chemical engineering degree or some other high level chemistry degree, both fields with their own chronic shortages and an upcoming cliff thanks to retirees reaching 30-35 years
[media]https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/908417773805633538[/media] My boy. Tweet he's replying to: [Media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908413019050463232[/media] [Media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908413134196572161[/media]
[QUOTE=sgman91;52679970]Some problems that I don't see being addressed: 1) How are we going to solve the doctor shortage? This will add a lot of people to the insurance rolls, increase usage of medical services, and decrease profitability for doctors. We are already on track to have massive issues with this in our current system. Lowering the incentives is going to make it worse, faster.[/quote] It's not like people don't utilize healthcare when they're poor (they do), they just get saddled with debt. The US also doesn't have a massive doctor shortage, it has a [url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/08/upshot/a-doctor-shortage-lets-take-a-closer-look.html?mcubz=0]high specialist-to-GP ration[/url], but the has a comparable number of physicians per capita, and they have the NHS, as you know. Sure, a demographically more dense country, but as your point was about a sudden influx of new patients and not coverage of rural areas (that already have pretty shit coverage under your current system), I think we should let that slide a bit. I also have to question whether the current system of simply having access as a function of your wealth is a good way to distribute healthcare. Not that people with money would have trouble finding a doctor even if there was a large shortage. [quote]2) Why would anyone trust the feds to control costs and provide good quality care when they have utterly failed to do so with medicare, medicaid, and the VA already? I remember when people were claiming that the VA was a great example of US government run healthcare... until the huge scandal about people dying while waiting for care entered the limelight.[/quote] Yeah, I don't know (letting the question whether medicare/medicaid is awful, slide) - but why is a private industry that [I]most certainly[/I] results in bloated costs and low coverage preferable? And why shouldn't the US be able to do what everyone else has already accomplished? Is the US simply so inept, even though it manages to run a road network, police, fire services etc. like a first-world country? [quote]3) "“You’re going to the same private doctor that you went to. You’re going to go to the same hospital that you went to. The only difference is instead of having a Blue Cross Blue Shield [insurance] card – and having to argue with your insurance company – you’re going to have a Medicare for All card. That’s it.” This quote is just plain BS. [B]There's zero guarantee that your doctor will continue to take the same patients, patient loads, etc. when their entire incentive structure is totally flipped upside down. In fact, there's a good chance that lots of doctors will just retire as their income is halved overnight. Assuming they don't make private insurance illegal, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of doctors just take private insurance. That is already happening now, with lots of doctors dropping their medicare patients due to the much lower compensation.[/B][/quote] This quote is just plan BS/speculation. So doctors will somehow have their pay halved (why?), even though there's also apparently a doctor shortage, and somehow it just ain't worth living anymore if you're making slightly less juicy money? Physicians in the US are currently [url=https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-health-care-workers/][I]exceedingly[/I] well paid[/qurl] compared to other countries, so they couldn't possibly withstand a cut to their pay without retiring? I think you're missing the fact that many people (probably especially physicians) are motivated by other things than money, and that even if they were, dropping down to "making really good money" is still better than just sit on your bum all day collecting retirement. [quote]4) Realize that this bill is a political tool, not an actual plan. It doesn't include any costs or ways to pay for it.[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone expects this to pass - yes, it's a political tool, no, there's nothing wrong with that. [editline]14th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;52681891]I've applied twice, with a bio degree before, 4.0 GPA, was told "you need like 8 clubs and a bunch of volunteer stuff". I waited and submitted again with 2 years of medic experience (literally nothing else changed on application) and magically they said "oh yea, we'll take you, but you need to get 4 classes done again at OUR school". Fuckers...[/QUOTE] This is so foreign to me, I just pressed a button that said "Apply" and now I'm in my third year (of six).
[QUOTE=Llamaguy;52681890][media]https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/908417773805633538[/media] My boy. Tweet he's replying to: [Media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908413019050463232[/media] [Media]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/908413134196572161[/media][/QUOTE] I love my people so I'll let them pay tens of thousands of dollars for a sickness they have no control over
[QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;52682000]I love my people so I'll let them pay tens of thousands of dollars for a sickness they have no control over[/QUOTE] That's the [B]AMERICAN WAY[/B] :terrists::terrists: don't you know? If you try to change it you're a filthy [highlight][B]COMMIE[/B][/highlight] and its evil! I seriously don't doubt there are people in the US that legitimately think this way.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;52681979] This quote is just plan BS/speculation. So doctors will somehow have their pay halved (why?), even though there's also apparently a doctor shortage, and somehow it just ain't worth living anymore if you're making slightly less juicy money? Physicians in the US are currently [url=https://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/what-makes-the-us-health-care-system-so-expensive-health-care-workers/][I]exceedingly[/I] well paid[/qurl] compared to other countries, so they couldn't possibly withstand a cut to their pay without retiring? I think you're missing the fact that many people (probably especially physicians) are motivated by other things than money, and that even if they were, dropping down to "making really good money" is still better than just sit on your bum all day collecting retirement. [/QUOTE] Salary isn't intrinsic to any of these systems really. Canadian doctors make a good deal less on average, but NHS doctors only fall somewhat below US ones. The concern of cutting pay isn't really current doctors, but future ones. All of that time with pay comparable to or less than what you could get with just a 4 year uni degree would discourage a lot of people.
[quote=ilikecorn]If we can get medical supply costs down, we can bring costs down for the end user.[/quote] That only really can start rolling along once you get the insurance industry to stop butting in and trying to get away with paying 5-10% the sticker price. "What's that, $40 pills? Uh, yeah, right. We'll go as high as $2 and no further."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.