Election 2020

[gcstomp]

its dark, to think a country than can easily afford to provide health care to its people based on its wealth relative to other countries that provide this same, US should not. not only does not, but SHOULD not. latest chart i can find, and US is such an outlier in its spending, but getting so little https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start

Again, to the "how will you pay for it" the answer is there. we do, we already have the spend per capita way beyond any other nation that provides universal health care. we need to eliminate the broken, the bottleneck admin, and 30 mil per year CEOs of insurance companies, of coders who are installed to deliberately obscure that you are being charged $7 for a hospital stay aspirin if you have 1 type of coverage, and .30 cents if you have another.so we get what we are paying for already. if there are some 500k people in a field that are for most part not at all providing better health, but there to maximize billing, that is a break that needs a fix to equalize to rest of industrialized world.

[Fresno Bob]

lets just start with everyone in government getting the same healthcare as our veterans, and then we'll see how good the government can provide healthcare

[TranaGreg]

...
Please define what reasonable access to health services are. Is the kidney for the 2 yr old ok, but not for the 45 year old with liver cirrhosis? Is a new lung ok for the 5 year old, but not for the 65 year old with COPD from 4 packing it? Who makes the determination as to what is reasonable access? Is access based on relative location, cost of care, age of person, how much the person can pay?

So if the government says it wont cover the kidney transplant for the 2 year old - what then? It's ok now that the poor sick child dies, because the government deigned they wouldnt pay for it? Does it make it easier to swallow that this happens because some government administrator made a decision as to what the government will pay for?
...

of course there are all kinds of scenarios and I'm sure there are many examples that are tough and for which there is no good answer, but for the vast majority of situations the reasonable clause works. Hey, it works in the criminal justice system - "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - it can work here too.

and for every clause where you refer to "government administrator", I really don't understand why you're okay with the same decisions being made by an "insurance adjuster".

[The Feral Slasher]

of course there are all kinds of scenarios and I'm sure there are many examples that are tough and for which there is no good answer, but for the vast majority of situations the reasonable clause works. Hey, it works in the criminal justice system - "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - it can work here too.

and for every clause where you refer to "government administrator", I really don't understand why you're okay with the same decisions being made by an "insurance adjuster".

After arguing time after time that Health Care isn't a right he is now pulling our heart strings because the government is going to allow a 2 year old to die because they won't pay for treatment.

[baldgriff]

Guys -
Its not about heart strings and its not about administrators/adjusters..

Ultimately we have a fundamental difference in what the government is/should be responsible for. Again, if shifting the amount I pay in insurance premium is merely going to be shifted to a tax the government collects for "single payer" - I just dont see that the system getting any less expensive or more efficient.

[The Feral Slasher]

Guys -
Its not about heart strings and its not about administrators/adjusters..

Ultimately we have a fundamental difference in what the government is/should be responsible for. Again, if shifting the amount I pay in insurance premium is merely going to be shifted to a tax the government collects for "single payer" - I just dont see that the system getting any less expensive or more efficient.

So how much of our medical care expenses are overhead and paperwork ? How does this compare to other countries ? How do other countries provide universal care with much lower health care expenditures per capita. I'd like to hear your explantion.

[DMT]

So how much of our medical care expenses are overhead and paperwork ? How does this compare to other countries ? How do other countries provide universal care with much lower health care expenditures per capita. I'd like to hear your explantion.

Because healthcare isn't a right like guns are.

[The Feral Slasher]

Another explanation I'd like to hear is that if we are going to lose 500,000 jobs by going to government health care, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, how do we become less efficient ? That seems like a really strange argument. If government health care is so much less efficient wouldn't it be creating lots of jobs ?

[nots]

Another explanation I'd like to hear is that if we are going to lose 500,000 jobs by going to government health care, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, how do we become less efficient ? That seems like a really strange argument. If government health care is so much less efficient wouldn't it be creating lots of jobs ?

Yes, it likely would, which is exactly the problem. Those 500,000 aren’t going to seemlessly transition into these newly needed the government jobs. Increasing the size of the federal government is what I think we should be avoiding, not allowing.
What I would like you to answer is: given how bad the VA is run and given the massive shortfall in Medicare, why do you think the government will be able to effienctly manage a much larger program?

[baldgriff]

Because healthcare isn't a right like guns are.

According to our Constitution...... this seems to be pretty accurate. Of course, its not on track with the balance of the conversation - and more just another boring shot at my positions than anything really meaningful.

I get it - we disagree. In America we are allowed to do that.


Edit to add: It is governments role to protect our rights and allow us to exercise our freedoms. It is not their role to provide everyone with healthcare at the force of fine or point of gun.

[The Feral Slasher]

Yes, it likely would, which is exactly the problem. Those 500,000 aren’t going to seemlessly transition into these newly needed the government jobs. Increasing the size of the federal government is what I think we should be avoiding, not allowing.
What I would like you to answer is: given how bad the VA is run and given the massive shortfall in Medicare, why do you think the government will be able to effienctly manage a much larger program?

So your earlier concern with finding jobs for the 500,000 people put out of work wasn't really a concern I guess.

[nots]

So your earlier concern with finding jobs for the 500,000 people put out of work wasn't really a concern I guess.

No, it is a concern. You have 500,000 people out of work, many of whom won’t have the skills or the ability to sign on with the federal government for the massive new program you created. You have flooded the market by eliminating private insurance and created a need for workers to fill dissimilar jobs. Spoiler alert: the Canadian system you seem so fond of also allows for private insurance. In fact, it’s neccessary for dental and drugs.
Lost in your snark apparently was an answer to the question I asked you: how well is the federal government handling our Veterans health care? If Medicare is doing so well it needs to replicated and expanded, why is there such a financial shortfall and what are your plans to fill in the current shortfall?

[baldgriff]

Spoiler alert: the Canadian system you seem so fond of also allows for private insurance. In fact, it’s neccessary for dental and drugs.

As a reminder this topic came up because Kamala stated she wants to ELIMINATE private health insurance. Not minimize it - eliminate it.

[TranaGreg]

with all this discussion about efficiency - the reason to move to state sponsored health care isn't for efficiency's sake; it's to help people who most need it.

[DMT]

As a reminder this topic came up because Kamala stated she wants to ELIMINATE private health insurance. Not minimize it - eliminate it.

And she backtracked within 24 hours.