Tweet
What I meant to say is the added cost over the total current cost to insure everyone. Remember, Med4All insures everyone, not just the uninsured. So we need to take total cost for everyone, subtract the current cost to insure everyone who has insurance, including current deductibles and other out of pocket expensive that would be covered by Med4All, then add costs for the uninsured. I'd bet the total added costs would be less than the cost to insure the uninsured in our current private system, and that is even if you use Bernie's Med4All as a comparison, which would be the most extensive and costly government health care system in the world. I strongly suspect Warren's solution will be to water down the coverage a bit to get costs down to make it more viable.
-
Last edited by Sour Masher; 10-22-2019, 09:43 AM. -
What I meant to say is the added cost over the total current cost to insure everyone. Remember, Med4All insures everyone, not just the uninsured. So we need to take total cost for everyone, subtract the current cost to insure everyone who has insurance, including current deductibles and other out of pocket expensive that would be covered by Med4All, then add costs for the uninsured. I'd bet the total added costs would be less than the cost to insure the uninsured in our current private system, and that is even if you use Bernie's Med4All as a comparison, which would be the most extensive and costly government health care system in the world. I strongly suspect Warren's solution will be to water down the coverage a bit to get costs down to make it more viable.Originally posted by KenComment
-
Comment
-
That would be silly. There are plenty of good choices in the large group that's running, and the field included quality options across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum, including several highly competent moderates to whom Biden supporters could have or could still switch horses if they were so inclined.Comment
-
This seems relevant to our discussions about health care. A million children have been removed from the medicaid system. More evidence our current system needs fixing.
Comment
-
Comment
-
I'm still not grasping your point apparently. If you take out the total cost for everyone's current insurance plan, and add back in the effective cost for Med4All just for those individuals, hopefully that nets to close to zero. So all that's left is the cost for uninsured, which we discussed should be much less than 3.2T. So where does the extra cost come from? You said the added costs would exceed 3.2T, why?Comment
-
It doesn’t make sense to me to kick 170M people off private insurance to help 45M people get coverage. It seems it would be far more efficient and cost effective and less disruptive to find and fund a solution that gets the 45M coverage while allowing the 170M to keep their coverage . Unless the goal really isn’t making sure everyone has insurance, but instead is to increase the scope of the federal government.Comment
-
I'm happy with either solution, but I will say that private insurance is a horrible mess. It's inefficient and the insurer definitely does not have your best interests in mind. Some of that might still be true with a single-payer system, but let's not make out like our current "private insurance" system is any great shakes. I thought it was great when I was young and single and never went to the doctor, but now that I have a family, the only thing it's better than is the nightmare of not having insurance."Jesus said to them, 'Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you.'"Comment
-
My understanding of these cost estimates is that the total, 3.2T represents the total cost of Med4All for every American. What I am saying is that, if we agree that everyone should have health care, we should look at what the most cost effective way to do that. Of course, not all of us agree that everyone should have health care. But many do agree it is a fine ideal to strive for. For those people, looking at the costs of Med4All, which would provide coverage for everyone, should be compared to the cost of providing that same coverage for everyone under our current system of private insurance. Doing that would involve finding the total cost of all coverage being offered today to those of us that have insurance, plus the total cost of providing coverage to all of those currently uninsured, plus the total out of pocket costs to all Americans under current insurance policies, plus cost to employers for all of this.
My hunch is that that number, the number that represents the same benefits of Med4All to every American under our current system that currently enriches the insurance industry, would exceed 3.2T a year. In short, I am assuming but would really like evidence for are the following--is Med4All's estimate of 3.2T per year more or less than what we would spend in our current system if we provided medical care for everyone? I think it is likely less. But the next question is the one that will convince or not convince most currently insured voters--how much more costly is Med4All when compared to the current costs those of us who are insured pay directly and indirectly for our coverage, our drugs, or deductibles, or hidden taxes and increased fees related to hospitals providing services to the uninsured and under-insured, and the costs in productivity lost to workers who don't have coverage and loss work days because of poor care? I can't find these numbers, and I suspect it would be impossible to get accurate numbers for this. But I suspect, as a whole, society comes out ahead not just morally but financial if all Americans have access to health care.Comment
-
I can attest to this. I worked in a hospital for years. Private insurance is in the business of making a profit, not making people healthy. That does not counter claims against government insurance, of course. But yeah, private insurance is an inefficient system geared towards profits not good health. It was way easier to bill and get reimbursed for medicare than many private insurances too, btw. That was not universal, but a whole, it took less effort/hours of labor.Comment
-
I've been trying to convince myself that recent rumours Hillary Clinton was planning a 2020 run were unfounded. She teased a 2020 run herself on twitter a few weeks back, and most thought it was a joke. She's stepped more into the limelight with attacks on Jill Stein and Tulsi Gabbard, and mocking Trump's letter. The question has remained, why is she doing this? Tulsi's implication that Clinton might join the race was laughed at, but Clinton never responded, and it's been almost a week, instead pivoting to her attack on Trump.
Now the biggest evidence she might run has surfaced. For some reason, Hillary Clinton's website just added a "policy" section, and it goes deep. It labels her as a "progressive". There's like 30 policy planks within it... so, what the hell? Is she testing the waters? Is she seeing Biden toast, 2-way between Warren and Sanders, splitting the vote to go to the 2nd round at the convention where the superdelegates swing it to Clinton?
I can't believe she has such crappy advisors as to think she could win, but if you're surrounded by Washington insiders telling you "look, Biden is toast and Buttigieg can't get the black vote. You'll unify the centrists...", I think she could be persuaded to run again. Her Tulsi attack shows an epic failure to understand her own deep unpopularity. In reality, it would likely be a gift to Sanders, as HRC would take a small chunk from Warren, a big chunk from Biden, and certainly all of Buttigieg's fundraising... so I'm intrigued to see how it plays out.
Apparently Nov. 3rd is the final day to file to declare a run in the primary, so we have less than 2 weeks to see if she runs. I guess the same would go for Mike Bloomberg.Larry David was once being heckled, long before any success. Heckler says "I'm taking my dog over to fuck your mother, weekly." Larry responds "I hate to tell you this, but your dog isn't liking it."Comment
Comment