Medicare-for-All is some sort of "far left" fantasy in the United States, but single-payer healthcare is center-right dogma in every other developed country. I have no idea why this is so hard for the American right to grasp: single-payer healthcare is a social program, but it's not the same as socialism. We aren't trying to steal the means of production from you in some sort of revolution, we just don't want people to die from preventable things. It is entirely possible to have a single-payer healthcare system alongside a thriving capitalist economy. This sort of foundational public service actually makes economies better, not worse. It's not a burden on the market to have healthy workers.
People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
51–60 of 246 posts
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#52The point of health insurance is to pay into a risk pool as a collective so that the small percentage of people who end up needing the largest percentage of health care, nobody dies or goes into monumental debt. This can be done via taxes but insurance is a private market solution which should in theory make it more efficient for the sake of maximizing profit. So then if it's supposedly more efficient, why do I waste…
If private insurance is going to work, then every healthcare provider has to accept payment from every insurance. This clusterfuck we have where you have in-network providers with one price and out-of-network providers with a different price just has to stop.
Oh you went to an in-network hospital, but this one doctor walked into the room for five minutes and she was out-of-network, so now your bill is 10x higher than it otherwise would be, etc. etc. It's ridiculous.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> as well as the loose independent collective of progressive organizations around similar national and local causes who have also sprung up, The problem being that none of their candidates won competitive seats . Now, some like Kara Eastman came close..but candidates closer to the Obama/Hillary mold, veterans, and pro-gun control candidates in suburbs made up the bulk of the wins in the midterms.
I doubt your data. Just one counter example, in Orange County CA, Katie Porter, a democrat, won a competitive seat in a district that has been Republican for a long time (maybe 30+ years?).
From what I understand, she wasn't endorsed by Our Revolution (I'm strictly talking about the Bernie-aligned groups). She was endorsed by lots of other progressive groups that are more effective at this sort of thing.
On the other hand, people like Kendra Horn flipped deep-red Oklahoma 5th with help of Bloomberg's Independence PAC, and Sharice Davids beat Bernie-backed Brent Welder in the primary to win the general by 10 points in a swing district.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#54Yes, people do lose their insurance constantly when they switch jobs...and then immediately sign onto their new plan. Is the argument that switching insurance plans is stressful? What's stressful is remaining uncovered. Switching plans is hardly comparable to the transition to a Medicare-for-all program.
> and then immediately sign onto their new plan Nope. Employer-provided insurance plans often have blackout dates. If you quit your job on June 2, and start your new job on June 3, your new job's health insurance might not actually take effect for up to 30, 60, or even 90 days after your start date. To cover that gap period, you either have to switch to a new plan with your old employer (commonly called COBRA) at rid…
As I painfully found out, transitioning between jobs also requires competent HR people on both ends. Our insurance was accidentally terminated a week early so our claim was denied and we got a massive bill. Not only do you have to then deal with the insurance company but you have to deal with your previous employer to fix the situation.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Medicare for all that Bernie is proposing is a reaction to the inability of Congress to meaningfully fix the issue. Wouldn't expanding Medicare to all also require an act of Congress? Bernie will have the influence of the White House, which is important, but it doesn't change the fact that Congress is still the body that would need to fix this. I've always felt like the Affordable Care Act was a bandaid almost…
After Obama ran on hope and change and won, one thing he did was shut down his very capable campaign organization without transitioning it to something else. It was maybe one tactical reason that later midterms became a mess for Democrats. It's pretty clear the Bernie's organization, as well as the loose independent collective of progressive organizations around similar national and local causes who have also sprung…
"After Obama ran on hope and change and won,"
My theory is that presidents should try to make big changes only in their second term when they understand how the system works. Obama in his first term was a complete pushover with the banks after 2008 and also during the Obamacare debate. I think he would have done much better in his second term.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s been ameliorated somewhat by ACA and is the only reason I think it’s an improvement even though my premiums have gone up. There’s all sorts of pre-existing conditions, and healthcare with the threat of retroactive recision if they feel your application was incomplete ought to feel insecure to just about anyone.
Somewhat, but people with insurance are still the largest group of people with medical bankruptcies.
Insurance is expensive in this country because medical care is expensive.
Medical care is expensive for a variety of reasons: nurse shortage, high-cost of training doctors, poor market conditions (opaque pricing that almost no layperson understands), cultural emphasis on fighting to the end rather than dying with dignity.
The cultural part probably won't change, we just have to accept that USA's culture (aka: "Full Code") is going to naturally result in more expensive health care. Its far more expensive to try to live than to accept death. Maybe someone out there will fight the cultural battle, but I don't see any political advantage in doing so.
Other issues can be worked on. Doctors aren't necessary for all care: nurses are sufficient for most cases. Lowering the cost of becoming a doctor likely would help too: if doctors had less medical bills, they might charge less for their services. (They HAVE to charge a lot to pay off those $200k+ to $300k+ student loans).
Medicine / Drugs is getting political... because changes to drug laws necessarily becomes a patent dispute. Should we allow drugs from India to become FDA-tested and imported? Or should we keep them banned for patent-law issues?
There's research issues: FDA is purely a placebo test. There's almost no comparative research going on at the federal level (Obamacare started up a comparative research group, but that group needs more funding and probably should also research on the PRICE of medical solutions. For whatever reason, research of prices is illegal). FDA is a very, very rigorous placebo test, but that's all it is. If a new drug comes out that's better than a placebo (but worse than standard treatment), it will pass the FDA. This means that doctors still have to research which drugs are most effective for their patients on their own.
Doctors can't trust insurance companies when they pay for research: insurance companies are looking for the cheapest solution. Drug companies are obviously biased, and may not conduct fair comparative trials. And unfortunately, those are the two major groups which sponsors research in the USA.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#57The point of health insurance is to pay into a risk pool as a collective so that the small percentage of people who end up needing the largest percentage of health care, nobody dies or goes into monumental debt. This can be done via taxes but insurance is a private market solution which should in theory make it more efficient for the sake of maximizing profit. So then if it's supposedly more efficient, why do I waste…
We have a high-deductible health plan and live in Reno. When my gf recently had the need for a CAT scan, the first choice was here in Reno, and it was priced at over $800. She cancelled her appointment, called over in Carson City (20 minutes south of Reno), and got one done, by someone in our network, for $400. The doctor's office who referred her said, "$800? Really!?" The Reno specialist made her a follow-up appoin…
That actually sounds like the high deductible plan is functioning as it should though. Causing consumers to price-shop and avoid price-gouging providers.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yes, people do lose their insurance constantly when they switch jobs...and then immediately sign onto their new plan. Lets say you payed for insurance, but were healthy for the 90s. So ~10-years of paying insurance. Around 2005, you are diagnosed with Diabetes, so your insurance pays for your care. Around 2007, the recession happens and you lose your job. You immediately find a new job, but you need to get new insu…
If you find a new job and you’re eligible under group insurance, the insurance company can’t deny a claim under pre-existing conditions. This was true before the ACA. What the ACA changed was that insurance companies couldn’t exclude treatment based on preexisting conditions if you go on the open market.
Pre-ACA group plans could deny preexisting conditions for a time period equal to the time that you were uninsured.
When I switched job I would get a letter from previous insurance company stating the dates that I was insured. Once I actually had to provide that to the new company.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#59Medicare-for-All is some sort of "far left" fantasy in the United States, but single-payer healthcare is center-right dogma in every other developed country. I have no idea why this is so hard for the American right to grasp: single-payer healthcare is a social program, but it's not the same as socialism. We aren't trying to steal the means of production from you in some sort of revolution, we just don't want people…
"single-payer healthcare is a social program, but it's not the same as socialism"
American politics is geared towards appealing to the extremes. Social programs are "socialist" and get connected to the Soviet Union, cuba and Venezuela. If you say something that's even slight politically incorrect you are immediately labeled as a "racist" that should be removed from your job and all public discussion. There is no interest in discussing problems and finding solutions. It's all about anger.
Re: People Lose Their Employer-Sponsored Insurance Constantly
#60The point of health insurance is to pay into a risk pool as a collective so that the small percentage of people who end up needing the largest percentage of health care, nobody dies or goes into monumental debt. This can be done via taxes but insurance is a private market solution which should in theory make it more efficient for the sake of maximizing profit. So then if it's supposedly more efficient, why do I waste…
We have a high-deductible health plan and live in Reno. When my gf recently had the need for a CAT scan, the first choice was here in Reno, and it was priced at over $800. She cancelled her appointment, called over in Carson City (20 minutes south of Reno), and got one done, by someone in our network, for $400. The doctor's office who referred her said, "$800? Really!?" The Reno specialist made her a follow-up appoin…
Why did she “need” a CT scan? Doctors love to order excessive CT scans to help pay off the machine.