Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
14. Regardless? Hardly.
Wed Jul 13, 2016, 11:54 AM
Jul 2016

Page 15 on in this document describes how medicare was implemented:

https://www.nasi.org/usr_doc/med_report_reflections.pdf

You would need to expand this to the whole health care system, which is way more complex, technology oriented and labor intensive than it was 45 years ago. Cancer drugs and treatments are a new issue in health care.

And my father's experience with getting his cancer treatments with Medicare was a nightmare for his physician, who had to submit paperwork three times, and be rejected three times before his regular treatments would be re-imbursed. His physician is not accepting any more Medicare patients.

"Most health policy analysts — including those who are sympathetic to the idea — say moving from the current U.S. public-private hybrid health system to one fully funded by the government in one step is basically impossible. And that’s making a huge assumption that it could get through Congress."

Also I trust non-partisan health care policy analysts than I would someone who has a career advocating for a specific policy. God's moving finger doesn't get inserted so much that way.

Bull puckies. If you poll people about Medicare for All, most of them want it. merrily Jul 2016 #1
Did you read the part about the consequences of implementation? ehrnst Jul 2016 #4
How did implementation of Medicare go? People have plenty of experience with Medicare, merrily Jul 2016 #5
The implementation of Medicare wasn't for the whole population. ehrnst Jul 2016 #11
Regardless, the implementation went fine and it's in place now. That wheel does not have to be merrily Jul 2016 #12
Regardless? Hardly. ehrnst Jul 2016 #14
And this part? ehrnst Jul 2016 #17
Quoting from my Reply 12: merrily Jul 2016 #20
"If people want to do this, it will be done and done well." ehrnst Jul 2016 #23
Poster, please. What in hell does what most people want have to do with what gets through Congress? merrily Jul 2016 #25
The public option was the part of the ACA that resembled most Medicare for All. ehrnst Jul 2016 #26
One way creon Jul 2016 #2
The shorter path... Chan790 Jul 2016 #6
That method creon Jul 2016 #30
Incrementally, perhaps. And expand children's health care coverage. ehrnst Jul 2016 #9
That creon Jul 2016 #29
Is that what they're going with now...that it's "impossible"? NorthCarolina Jul 2016 #3
Did you read the article? ehrnst Jul 2016 #7
A two thousand page bill for Obamacare--no problemo. merrily Jul 2016 #8
Did you read the article? Medicare for All will take much more than 2000 pages ehrnst Jul 2016 #10
See Replies 5 and 12. Thanks. merrily Jul 2016 #13
See my responses to them. Thanks. ehrnst Jul 2016 #15
No. Arguing is pointless. We're not going to agree, even a little. merrily Jul 2016 #16
You don't agree with the majority of health policy analysts ehrnst Jul 2016 #19
Actually, I don't agree with the negative parts of your article to which you cling. merrily Jul 2016 #21
Which is the opinion of the majority of health care policy analysts ehrnst Jul 2016 #24
Doesn't matter. They should at least be happy that the Hortensis Jul 2016 #31
Yes. We need to be moving toward single-payer models... Orsino Jul 2016 #18
Socialist countries in Europe have universal coverage without single payer. ehrnst Jul 2016 #22
We have multiple single-payer systems here, too. Orsino Jul 2016 #27
If there is a public option and one for people over 55 that takes the heat off Healthcare, applegrove Jul 2016 #28
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Democrats Unite, But What...»Reply #14