don't be offended, when they steal you've A) got something good and B) take it as a compliment that your rival did this.
12 Democratic Senators sign on to co-sponsor Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All Bill
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Pair of idiots in a circle jerk...
Tell us again how solar panels cool down your house and reduce the need for AC.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Tell us again how solar panels cool down your house and reduce the need for AC.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
15 Democratic cosponsors have signed on to support Sanders bill in 48 hours. That has never happened before. We have achieved turning medicare for all into an actual possibility and forced congress to go on record. This will be a big issue in 2018 for midterms and 2020 for the general election. The tide has shifted, even establishment Democrats can see it, if they don't support it, they know it will harm their chances of reelection. That's all from pressure put on them by the electorate.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What "political capital" are you talking about? Bernie dusted off his old plan, removed provisions on how to pay for it and released it with all the ballyhoo that Sanders is famous for.
It's not as if this bill is going to make it anywhere anytime soon. I'm interested in seeing if public opinion really has changed towards Government provided healthcare. We'll find out once Republican opposition to it mounts.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
You do remember that Republicans are the ones who will stop it, don't you?
This gives me the sense that public opinion favors free healthcare, not single payer healthcare:
Since Sanders launched his presidential campaign in May 2015, public support for universal healthcare has climbed. Where 46% of the public supported such a system in 2008 and 2009, a recent Kaiser poll found 53% now support the idea.
But that same survey found that when respondents were told that a universal healthcare plan might give the government “too much control,” or that it might increases taxes, opposition spiked from 43% to 62% and 60% respectively – perhaps a sign of the major political and policy fights that lie ahead.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/13/bernie-sanders-universal-healthcare-medicare-for-all
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
The capital he holds amongst his supporters at least, they expect him to follow through on his promises, and soon.
I only oppose single payer because universal is better. In the former insurance companies still control everything, they just have to negotiate a good deal with the Govt on price.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Bernie's plan is Medicare for all. It would phase in over four years and eliminate Insurance company participation in this market..
Without provisions to pay for it, this is a symbolic bill. It could backfire if people believe the crap Republicans push out or it could be a powerful tool against Republicans. We'll see.
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Still pays for-profit hospitals ridiculous prices for drugs, etc.
With the current waste in the system we could nationalize 70% of the current healthcare infrastructure at current market rates over say 60 years.
st0wandgrow
Well-Known Member
All single payer systems offer universal coverage ( the inverse is not always true), and just because a system is set up as single payer, does not mean that "isnurance companies control everything". I'm not sure where you're getting that from. In most cases the single payer is a government enitity. Like in Canada (consdiered single payer), there are usually private for profit insurers still involved in non-essential services and procedures like elective knee replacements, optical, dental, etc. This does vary some by province too....but the point is insurance companies don't control everything. They control very little. The provincial government is the single payer for all medical care that does not fall in to the non essential categories listed above, which is the vast majority of all care.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Right now, it doesn't pay for anything because it isn't funded.
The bill is symbolic. I'm glad it's being floated in an non-election year so we can see what the public reaction will be. In past years, this has been a losing issue for Democrats, which is why the old guard is so reluctant to jump in with both feet. Opinion polls reflect the same old response the public shows when people say how much it will cost, as if the current system is such a good deal.
I don't see how we are going to get a handle on cost reduction without the government first taking control of payment.
My local hospital, a so-called non-profit, has a beautiful lobby with fountains, artwork and such. European hospitals have a much more institutional look but provide better service. Just saying we have a long way to go when it comes to figuring out how to reduce costs without jeopardizing service when hospital planners and administrators place high value on unimportant fluff.
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
What bothers me is reality never matches the theory.
And 'Medicare for all' is not what Canada and other western societies have.
I'll be on Medicare in a year and a half. You still need a supplimental policy to cover the 20% they don't cover.
My friends in Canada don't pay anything. No copays, no deductables, nothing. Except the higher tax rate.
I get the feeling that if we had what Bernie supports tomorrow, it wouldn't be what you expect. I like the idea, but guaranteed they will fuck it up. If we were at 80% public approval, and could study it and go over it with a fine tooth comb for 6 months without republican resistance (not to mention resistance from insurance, phama, medical supplier, etc. companies), it could work.
I'm not very optimistic. And you'd HAVE to have higher tax rates especially for multi millionaires. Which we should have anyway.
Sooooo much resistance. I'm depressed thinking about it already.
You know, Medicare isn't really that great, right? You get sick enough, you can wind up in a nursing home and lose everything.
I always supported a 'catastrophic' gov't. health insurance. So they can't bleed the little guy dry at the end. You have no idea how many people lose everything at the end while a bunch of CEO's smoke cigars and laugh.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
exactly. sounds nice and gives a warm fuzzy feeling but nowhere near universal coverage.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Yeah, but Republicans are going to legalize it any day now.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
I heard that ole Beauregard has a few of them there negroes on his cannabis plantation down there in Alabammy.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
The reasons you cite for not being optimistic about adopting a system of universal healthcare are unreasonable, imo
Medicare is one of the most popular programs in the US
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
it sure is. insurance companies are bending over backwards to cover 55 to 70 year olds with multiple pre-existing conditions, cancer, lung disease, etc.
you're not an actuary, i take it?