General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNow that President Obama supports Medicare for All,
can we agree that even President Obama now recognizes that only a single payer system can really solve the problems of the US healthcare system?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/09/obama-medicare-for-all-is-good.html
The US healthcare system is a capitalist controlled system that monetizes what should be a right. And that is health, and health care. The US system commodifies health so that the 1% can literally profit by often denying health care, and by often grossly overcharging what it does provide..
The US healthcare system is ranked 37th while its war spending is ranked 1st.
And these rankings shows our political priorities better than any rhetoric about rights and progress.
In spite of all of the misleading rhetoric purporting to show that Medicare for All is unaffordable, it is the current profit based system that is unaffordable.
JHan
(10,173 posts)to implement it?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)I was being tongue in cheek, so I expected a similar response
Cha
(296,726 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)The next thing we'll hear :
"Oh so "establishment democrats" are "Finally waking up" to the need to expand health care"
As if it's not something they've been working on for decades.
And Obama's support was as broad as anyone else's. Including mine.
George II
(67,782 posts)"OBAMACARE"!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But Romneycare was expanded and became the framework for the ACA.
We both know that if President Obama had proposed single payer it would have never been passed.
But at this point, with polls showing strong support for a variant of single payer, Obama's public support and reminder is excellent.
Cha
(296,726 posts)"romneycare".
President Obama got a good foundation of healthcare with what he could get votes on at the time. It helped a lot of people who would otherwise not have healthcare. From what I hear saved lives, too.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Romneycare was a Heritage Foundation proposal that by design allowed the for profit insurance companies to keep profiting at the expense of patients.
No matter that the ACA contained certain aspects that favored patients, it was and is designed to allow insurance companies to profit from health care.
Cha
(296,726 posts)Link to tweet
Damn straight! the newcomers leave out the strong foundation details and the good job that President Obama did getting this through barely. Must Not give him credit under any circumstances.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to all of our conversations now that I have a decoder for what lol's mean. Or is this specifically what Lulzd means?
George II
(67,782 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)♪♫♬ He's got me under his skin.
He's got me deep in the heart of him.
So deep in his brain that I'm really a part of him.
He's got me under his skin. ♪♫♬
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And if we agree that a single payer plan is better, we already have Medicare. That is a specific, currently existing plan.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Single Payer that is.
It's not the only avenue available. I prefer the French system, where there are some parallels with Obamacare. I'd rather us build on what we have.
In any case the first order of business is gaining control of Congress. And we'll have to keep control of it for a sustained period. Conservatives will continue to use the courts to undermine current healthcare programs. So this is going to be a long journey, there are no quick easy fixes and it should not be sold as such.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)JaneQPublic
(7,113 posts)But when even some Dems wouldn't go for it, the plan got compromised down to the bill that finally passed.
Maybe I'm remembering the events wrong, but we shouldn't be surprised Obama might bé OK with MFA.
George II
(67,782 posts)....wasn't an epiphany.
Voltaire2
(12,934 posts)Medicare for All using the exact phrase Medicare for All. It is a big deal.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and then his son John Jr. and then Jr.'s wife Debbie, because they never used the term "Medicare for All" even though they have collectively been pushing for universal healthcare since the 1940s?
As the saying goes, "what's in a name?"
Barack Obama's opinion on the subject hasn't changed in more than a decades, but now he's "come around" just because yesterday he used the nom-du-jour?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)foam at the mouth at the mention of any other name for expanding health care access, including Universal Health Care.
His goal is to get out the vote for Democrats, not to endorse specific legislation - he includes it in a list of things that are "good ideas."
He was also calling out Republican leaders to stop enabling the destruction of our democracy.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)See what I did there?
George II
(67,782 posts)....and that's all some got out of the entire thing.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)(He is mistaken when he says that "single payer is the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world" - I think that he was simplifying it for people, and didn't want to get into the various systems that countries use to get to universal health care.)
If I were starting a system from scratch then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based healthcare. And, although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place.
We don't want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we're trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy. So what I've said is, let's set up a system where, uh, if you already have healthcare through your employer and you're happy with it, you don't have to change doctors. You don't have to change plans. Nothing changes. If you don't have healthcare, or you're highly unsatisfied with your healthcare, then let's give you choices. Let's give you options, including a public plan that you can enroll in and sign up for. That's been my proposal.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106969104
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's a very nuanced take with an emphasis on improving what already exists as best as possible.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Obama famously was bashed because he didn't let single payer wonks at the table during the negotiations. The ACA barely passed on its own merits. Single payer didn't have the votes then. And it won't have the votes until we have Congress and the Presidency back, if then.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But Congress would not support it. And Baucus would not even consider testimony about it.
Meadowoak
(5,531 posts)I think she was a receptionist in a doctors office. IIRC
KentuckyWoman
(6,679 posts)I do believe basic life saving medical care is a right, but not ALL medical care.
All the rest falls under the heading of what is the most frugal, practical way to deliver medical care to all of our people. We should be treating it the same way we treat police, fire, basic food production, the basics of the transportation system, the power grid, education etc. Medicare for all works in this regard. The system is already there.
The mantra it would be too expensive is deliberate bullshit. If someone really wants to prove Medicare for all is too expensive then they would include every single solitary dime we (as an entire society) currently spend on medical care vs every single solitary dime we will spend once we have Medicare for all. Look at the totals. The end.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)including dental, vision, rx....
I agree that like public school, it doesn't need all the bells and whistles, but it needs to provide the foundational skills to go on to post secondary education/training.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)But there are millions of Americans that are locked out of it. When they do require care, it is a catastrophic event that struck them. There are millions of seriously sick people that do not use the medical system at all, so their costs are not part of the current expense of the system. When healthcare for all is implemented, those people come into the system for what will most likely be expensive medical care. So the problem becomes the startup costs, Vermont, Colorado and California failed to implement Single Payer for this reason. Once the large startup costs, which can last 10-15 years are past, then the system begins to save a ton of money and continue to do so. Canada implemented Single Payer piecemeal, Europe implemented it after being leveled by wars, when societal systems lay in ruins. The USA would have to implement a system that is 10 times larger than Canada's in a developed economy, that dramatically adds to the difficulty, as Vermont, Colorado and California found out.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That was when the rest of the industrialized world was starting - from scratch.
We now have to do a retrofit, at a time when technology and advances have made all medicine more comprehensive and expensive, which is far more difficult than expanding with medical advances and containing costs.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Anything else is prone to failure and it will be another 6-7 decades before another effort is made.
KentuckyWoman
(6,679 posts)The infrastructure is already there. No one will need a stand alone single payer system. The people who process claims now for insurance companies could just as easily process claims for medicare. The civil servant tests are pretty easy.
The only fighting words is where the money comes from and how we move it around for the people currently on sold for profit health insurance.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)If a system is built upon what already exists, then maybe it can work. But Bernie and people that back him are not proposing that.
Even if a system is built upon what exists, people will need to be let in gradually to control costs. For example, people 55 or older can be brought into the Medicare for all system while younger people stay on the ACA or private insurance. Ten years after the first expansion and after initial issues have been ironed out, people 44-54 can be brought in, a decade later, 30-43 brought in, a decade later everyone is brought in. The method front loads the system with typically the people prone to sickness and it takes into account that we are starting 6 decades after smaller nations started their systems.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)You would have saved them time and a headache.
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)And, if we can agree that once the dust settles, what is called Medicare for all will have morphed into something different than Medicare as it is.
George II
(67,782 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)2008 Presidential campaign, probably even years before.
Just because he mentioned it again yesterday (not with that specific name) I'm amazed that some are inferring that he FINALLY has come around (i.e., "Now that President Obama supports Medicare for All" and "...even President Obama now....." )!
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)Ones who Ignore everything else, all the work others have done, all the contributions madeespecially by women, specifically, Hillary Clinton who was trying in back 1993,and people of color, especially President Obama who literally changed the healthcare landscape. All because of a catch phrase.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)To do that, they simply ignore any and all inconvenient facts, or they fight you with meaningless historical pictures and notes that don't remotely tell the whole story.
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)Im pretty tired of it.
SMH
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)No, he didn't. In fact, 2009 he stated why he would not put Single Payer forward
(He is mistaken when he says that "single payer is the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world" - I think that he was simplifying it for people, and didn't want to get into the various systems that countries use to get to universal health care.)
Healthcare is one-sixth of our economy, so it is a complicated and difficult task. Congress is going to have to work hard, and everybody is going to have to come at this with a practical perspective as opposed to being ideologically pure in getting it done Why not do a single-payer system? A single-payer system is like, Medicare is sort of a single-payer system, but it's only for people over 65, and the way it works is, uh, the idea is you don't have insurance companies as middle men. The government goes directly and pays doctors or nurses.
If I were starting a system from scratch then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based healthcare. And, although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place.
We don't want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we're trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy. So what I've said is, let's set up a system where, uh, if you already have healthcare through your employer and you're happy with it, you don't have to change doctors. You don't have to change plans. Nothing changes. If you don't have healthcare, or you're highly unsatisfied with your healthcare, then let's give you choices. Let's give you options, including a public plan that you can enroll in and sign up for. That's been my proposal.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106969104
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)We can change the conversation, change and challenge the framing, and change the course.
And, we can vote in November, and we can do our best to convince others to vote also.
George II
(67,782 posts)..."Medicare for All". Did I miss it?
In fact, in the second quoted paragraph he actually does say he is favor of it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And that is faulty reasoning. There was and is no reason to start from scratch. It takes the political will to expand Medicare to cover everyone.
George II
(67,782 posts)1 a : in the event that
b : allowing that
c : on the assumption that
d : on condition that
In the context of his statement, I don't understand your critique of it.
betsuni
(25,363 posts)If he had said Medicare for everybody it would not count. Must be the exact words or he never wanted health care for everybody, never occurred to him. He said Medicare-for-All and MAGIC. Open Sesame! NOW he wants health care. Like if someone wants to raise the minimum wage to $14.50. Does this mean they want the raise the minimum wage? No, it does not. If must be FIFTEEN DOLLARS. This is the magic number.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)but did you miss the REST of his speech?
EVERY kind of national healthcare program is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Including Medicare itself. Not just ACA, VA, CHIPS, etc.
Get it?
Abortion is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Social Security is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Emissions control regulations are on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Most labor laws are on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society, civil rights acts, net neutrality, EPA, etc., etc., etc., are ALL on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
PROGRESSIVISM in government is on the brink of being declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
GOVERNMENT OF, BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE is in grave danger.
Please get it: The anti-tax, anti-regulation, big money classes are one more congressional term and Supreme Court justice away from being able to put an end to ANY government organized healthcare system for probably another generation. And far more. Every personal right and freedom we have is in grave danger.
We must stop them. There's no one else. The Democratic Party is the one.
Voltaire2
(12,934 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Call it what you will, Medicare for All, Single Payer, Universal Heathcare Coverage, it all boils down to the same system.
Voltaire2
(12,934 posts)Obama explicitly set out to try to craft a bipartisan universal healthcare bill, and it was never a comprehensive universal single payer government run health insurance system.
JHan
(10,173 posts)those were the political realities and the polling wasn't favorable. Obama opted for an option which would expand coverage for Americans - he did his job, to improve conditions for Americans despite the challenging political realities at the time.
They never had the votes. Period.
JHan
(10,173 posts)MAGIC.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)not even with 60 dem senators and controlling the house
<rolls eyes>
betsuni
(25,363 posts)He was the 60th vote.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)the 60 vote threshold was always artificial
we just weren't smart enough to get rid of it when we had control
ya notice the repubs no longer need 60 votes to confirm a sc judge right?
I don't blame Obama really, I think he thought it was the best we could get at the time but while he MIGHT of personally supported some kind of single payer he NEVER campaigned on it and I get tired of the peops here trying to re write history
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Single payer, or Medicare for All are end states, we won't get there in a single leap because of politics. Unless you are willing to kill every single republican, some right leaning independents and any voters that replace them, then politics is a reality and President Obama seemed to have touched on that reality. Start the process in November by going out to vote for democrats and encourage family and friends to vote for democrats in November ALWAYS do the same every future election.
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....MEDICARE FOR ALL before yesterday, like he had a wondrous epiphany. He hasn't changed his position from what it was a decade or more ago, but now he's supporting "Medicare for All"!
As George Gershwin wrote:
"You like tomato /təˈmeɪtə/ / And I like tomahto /təˈmɑːtə/"
Enough of the games, please. We have more problems in this country to waste time parsing words and worrying about terminology.
George II
(67,782 posts)....for many many years.
As they say, "I see what you're doing!"
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)The idea that there's some great divide within our party over this issue is a fabrication.
When it comes to universal health care coverage, it's always been a question of how we get there and what form it takes. Through the years, we've taken steps in the direction of universal coverage, but there are numerous obstacles in the way and progress has always been a lengthy, hard struggle.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Republicans and the far left. They come at the issue from different angles, but the results are the same, they obstruct or delay progress.
questionseverything
(9,645 posts)with the public option Obama campaigned on. it was Lincoln,lieberman and some other conserva dem that held it up in the senate not the far left or repubs
shanny
(6,709 posts)"far left" obstructed or delayed progress on universal health care. I'll wait.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)2010 by acting like children in the midterms, a time when we could have solidified the gains from the ACA by protecting democratic seats and keeping statehouses and legislatures.
shanny
(6,709 posts)Do tell. Who?
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Because they felt that a long list of historic accomplishments was not enough. Foolish people.
shanny
(6,709 posts)proposals in 1992. What do the children of the far left in 2010 have to do with that?
MineralMan
(146,243 posts)He is no longer President. As you may have noticed, we now have Republicans in charge of all three branches of government. Medicare for All is not even under consideration.
The focus should not be on what President Obama supports, but on how we can get anything at all that resembles Medicare for All. Yammering about it here will accomplish nothing in that regard.
Until we can move the nation in a more progressive direction by electing people who at least will consider such a proposal, any time spent on promoting it is a waste of energy, frankly.
We need to win some elections. That's the first step. Let's do that, shall we?
Voltaire2
(12,934 posts)I didnt know that.
MineralMan
(146,243 posts)office in the government. He has an opinion that is the same as my opinion, but has zero authority in making that opinion the law of the land. That's exactly the same amount of authority I have.
I can't think of anyone who is a progressive Democrat who does not want universal healthcare. I do. President Obama does. My House representative does. My senators do. I imagine you do, too.
None of them or us can move an inch in that direction, however, at this time. Not an inch. Until Democrats regain control of the Congress and White House, we will not be able to seriously consider that option as a real possibility.
Voltaire2
(12,934 posts)Come on, youre better than this. Of course it is a huge deal that Obama just endorsed Medicare for All. In a way you all should be relieved, as his mainstreaming of this issue removes the taint of Voldemort from it. Now we can all agree with Obama that this is an issue we can win with.
MineralMan
(146,243 posts)Beyond that, Obama is powerless, actually. If he can help Democrats win offices, then more power to him.
Until we accomplish that simple step, it's all just rhetoric. Democrats. Elect them. Period!
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)We need to electorally crush republicans and do that for the next two to three decades before we see a fully developed progressive society. Some people get that, others get sidetracked chasing shiny object bullshit. We need to take back the country's leadership and HOLD IT, that process starts on November 6, 2018. Republicans understand the importance of the election in less than two months, some on our side are doing their usual divisive diversionary bullshit. President Obama has LONG supported universal access to Heathcare, call it what you want, the fact is that he was for it since watching his mom die from cancer and often not getting proper treatment because she could not afford it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)He says "It's a good idea," because for him to say anything other than that would be to invite the wrath of the "single payer or I won't vote" crowd.
MineralMan
(146,243 posts)I'm sorry, but saying "single payer or no vote" is just plain stupid. This is all a process. The process goes on whether a person votes or not. Our vote plays a role in influencing that process.
If someone says that to me, I say they're an idiot who doesn't understand anything out how things happen in this country.
I'm sick of it.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Power 2 the People
(2,437 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Most developed countries use a mixture of public and private payers to get to UHC.
Especially the ones that do it at the federal level.
And I think that Obama is doing the right thing by following non-controversial talking points. The midterms are coming up, and all need to be saying what it takes to get everyone to the polls.
The GOP has similar success with talking up overturning Roe, and getting rid of Planned Parenthood as the plan to reduce abortion, even when they know that neither will do that at all. Telling the base what it wants to hear to get out the vote works.
JHan
(10,173 posts)And France is considered to have the best healthcare system in the world ( last I checked).
SHRED
(28,136 posts)He always has
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)So they must ignore history, they must ignore that a man wanted full coverage for everyone because he watched his poor mom die as a child. Honestly, them and their purity bullshit sickens me.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Blue_true
(31,261 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....the Holy Grail of Universal Healthcare.
dansolo
(5,376 posts)And Medicare for All doesn't mean Bernie's plan, because Bernie's plan, contrary to the name, is not Medicare as people understand it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And it can be changed in ways that will make it a single payer plan. Medicare as a brand is familiar. People like Medicare. It needs reforms, it needs to have the Bush Administration changes eliminated and the age restriction eliminated as well.
SkyDancer
(561 posts)and is NOT Medicare in its current form.
I highly suggest you read the plan because this is going to be a huge campaign issue in 2020.
dansolo
(5,376 posts)I also read Bernie''s proposed funding for his plan. If he wants a single payer plan that pays for every single medical expense, then he damn well better be clear about how he will fund it. His funding proposals only cover half the cost. He has completely avoided mentioning where the rest of the money will come from. If it truly will cost less than people currently pay now for healthcare, then why won't he include any mention of it? It is because his plan will becomea lot less popular once you start telling peolle that their taxes will also have to increase a lot to pay for it.
SkyDancer
(561 posts)Why are you so concerned about how it will be funded?
We can offord a shit ton of $ for the MIC while people are literally dying from not having health insurance or even able to afford their meds.
Peoples lives are more important than the conservative argument of "how are we going to pay for it!"
The time has come to end people's suffering in this country over what every other first world country considers a basic human right.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)No ins. co. Deductibles, but the govt pays?
greatauntoftriplets
(175,727 posts)You buy Part B from an insurance company (in my case, it's Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois) and pay a monthly premium. There are also co-pays. Part D prescription coverage is extra and also purchased from an insurer.
Hekate
(90,510 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Response to guillaumeb (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
johnp3907
(3,729 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,306 posts)and MIRT moved so fast, I couldn't finish the jury duty! It gave me an error-mid process.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)was it calling Obama a name for now being for single payer?
BumRushDaShow
(128,306 posts)I got an error when I tried to complete the action. And then found out that MIRT got it before I was done.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)What's MIRT?
My vote went through. I don't see that the other one is listed there as "removed," if there were two. So maybe one was auto removed but the first one wasn't, or something like that.
Good.
BumRushDaShow
(128,306 posts)There are DUers who apply for and may be selected to join that "team" to patrol all of the groups and forums looking for trolls. They have their own subforum and special access to be able to determine if there are socks and whatnot. The poster who mentioned something about "2nd post" may have just seen a post count, where the 2nd post was in this thread (and a first post had already happened elsewhere).
Also edit to add - if a Jury had voted to hide, then it would have shown "Post removed". But when MIRT gets to them, you see that "Message auto-removed" designation.
johnp3907
(3,729 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,306 posts)(you can't when in jury duty). That sucker was gone by the time I was about to hit the button with my selection. The error was "You are not currently serving on a jury.".
But what it wrote was pretty nasty. I still have it up in a tab.
johnp3907
(3,729 posts)BumRushDaShow
(128,306 posts)That fits.
gulliver
(13,168 posts)Obama, Pelosi, and a lot of dedicated Dems got us the ACA. We didn't have sufficient voting power to get single payer (or even a public options) at that time. We barely got the ACA. The reason we didn't get more was partly due to unified Republican opposition of course. But the Dems didn't have big supermajorities in Congress, and we needed that to prevent filibuster and to allow for some votes straying. We were just a little too weak. For that, the "lefter than thou" deserve a slice of the blame.
Cha
(296,726 posts)It's despicable how some try to rewrite history to suit their agenda.
still_one
(92,058 posts)book, and refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016
President Obama was NEVER against Medicare for all, or a public option, what he did recognize was WE DIDN'T HAVE THE VOTES in Congress to pass it at the time, and we had a very short window to pass something or nothing.
We still don't have those votes.
Some couldn't seem to accept that, and refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016
betsuni
(25,363 posts)No matter how many times it is explained, like talking to a fence post.
still_one
(92,058 posts)betsuni
(25,363 posts)Whole thing was people correcting all the misinformation-trolls over and over and over about the ACA and Obama. That site is an anti-Democratic troll magnet. The normals providing facts are saints. It must be done.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)But I seem to recall that's what he spent a considerable amount of 2009 and 2010 trying to bring to reality??
betsuni
(25,363 posts)"I believe in a Medicare-for-all single payer program but it ain't going to happen right now. We don't have the support in the Congress for that. So while we continue that long term struggle, right now we need to improve the Affordable Care Act and that means a public option available in every state in this country which gives people a wide variety of options but makes sure that there is competition in every community in the country. In my view it means lowering the age of Medicare from 56 down to 55 ... ."
Bernie is right, that's why he abandoned his Medicare-for-all position after the election and adopted Hillary's position of adding a public option to the ACA and lowering the age of Medicare. I don't know why people still get mad at Obama for changing his position on health care due to political realities. It's what politicians do!
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,902 posts)It's amazing seeing people go from "Medicare for all is just ponies--get real" to "Obama always wanted and fought for Medicare for All."
Good stuff. You can't make it up.
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)I personally think Medicare for All is a meaningless catch phrase and a shit idea, if it ever came down to actual legislation. Medicare as it IS, is fairly inefficient, although recent years and some belt tightening including bundling, HCPS scores and the upgraded coding system probably helped. Medicare for ALL would need a lot of work.
What would emerge wouldnt be Medicare at all, we just need to call it something , and it would most likely have to start with single payer.
What people are saying, is Democrats have been fighting for universal Healthcare for a long time. Its been part of the Democratic conversation for a long time. The conversation didnt start in 2016.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)My take is that Obama pushed for what he saw as an acceptable compromise, but he totally missed, or ignored, the fact that the GOP had no interest in any compromise.
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)OR white America.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)I agree, but as President, Obama could not say that.
Cuthbert Allgood
(4,902 posts)Too quickly and too far in my opinion, but I clearly wasn't in the room.
It's amazing that so many that said universal single payer is just promising unicorns in 2016 are now acting like everyone has always been for it.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)and single payer is seen as the only real alternative to a corporate based, profit driven system.
CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)...every time a question of 'cost' is discussed, the answers will be different.
"The US healthcare system is a capitalist controlled system that monetizes what should be a right. And that is health, and health care. The US system commodifies health so that the 1% can literally profit by often denying health care, and by often grossly overcharging what it does provide.. "
K&R
.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)The US can afford a trillion dollars every year of war spending disguised as a defense budget.
The GOP can add trillions to the deficit by giving tax breaks to the billionaires,
but there is an argument about whether the country can afford single payer.
ismnotwasm
(41,952 posts)Because just as with the ACA, once everyone is fully insured we will NOT have enough healthcare workers. I stay out of many arguments, but this one point gets ignored and it makes me crazy. Hospitals are already under-reimbursed for care provided by Medicare, yet without Medicare, hospitals wont function at all. As it is, people still show up to Emergency as their primary care providers.
This is why I wanted a public option, why I still want one. A combination of public and private insurance, along with, say, more incentive grants (we have incentive grants for poorer areas and for areas like psych in nursing). There are also other avenues, nursing leaders are already working on it.
What Im trying to say, is payment and how to pay for is, yes, a big huge dealone that could be solved by shrinking our military budget but thats most likely not going to happen in significant enough numbers, even with a Democratic majoritybut its not the only or most immediate problem. I wish this conversation was broader. I hate catch phrases, because they dont convey the entire picture.
What the average person think M4A looks like is show up to the doctor, get diagnosed with, oh, appendicitis check into a hospital to get a laparoscopic remove along with the nursing care medication, radiology and post-surgical teaching and follow upand its all paid for by the government. Sounds good right?
Unless the lap turns into open surgery and you develop peritonitis and go into septic shock including respiratory failure, requiring a 3 month stay instead of a 2 day, along with extensive rehab needs. Your price tag has just increased exponentially. So, fine the government pays for this as well, kismet.
What Im trying to say to cost includes a lot of variables and there are no hard numbers, even though Medicare now bundles costsso much and no more for a hip replacement for instance. Hospitals that take on more of the underservedlike the one I work on, get a little bit more money because we do it. A M4A plan would theoretically remove the need for this, right? Except it wont. Things will get paid for, but its my belief that difficult to care for patient, whether by diagnosis or behavior will still land on certain hospitals, because we will have the resources to care for them, (talent, diagnostics equipment, number of staff) whereas a country hospital in a small county would not.
Im not being as clear as I would like, I want to convey that as fucked up as our system is, a wholesale Medicare expansion will have to come with a variety of fixes and absolutely have to a provision to get the number of healthcare workers we need to par. It also needs powerful focus on preventative care. It also needs, yes a viable way to pay for it. The drug companies need an entire separate rant.
I want universal healthcare. We discharge people that the streets, because their home is their car or van. We find shelters. We do emergency dialysis on renal patients who missed their dialysis for one reason or the other. We take care of junkies. We takes care of adults who have been in and out of the system since the day they were born. We take care of people who have half their livers removed to save their lives or who need intricate valve and aortic repair because of complex aneurysms. We take care of plastic reconstruction surgeries for the disfigured.
We do so much, we are distanced from the cost of it all, or we were, but now cost is brought into everything.