Thank yousorry bro, this is all you
Healthcare
- Thread starter RDCR07
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The sad thing is the propaganda war the GOP fight over this won't be to compare figure X and figure Y...unless they lie about one or both. It will be to hold up the 33 trillion dollar number as an outrageous expenditure, and at the same time focus people's minds on the "death panel" fears. Also socialism.
Diverging numbers on individual v national healthcare.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/222992/personal-national-healthcare-quality-high-marks.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/222992/personal-national-healthcare-quality-high-marks.aspx
It still completely boggles my mind just how expensive... everything is in the US when it comes to healthcare. Your % of GDP spent on public healthcare is way higher than most other developed countries yet people get far less for it. The insane cost of then going into hospitals without private cover, and then if you do want private healthcare, the average is something like $6,000 p/a for a single person. That is 600% more than I'm paying for mine in Ireland!
That's going to be the difficult part of switching policies. The current system is so entrenched where a large swath of the population are actually satisfied with what they have to where it will be difficult to sell them on the idea of changing, especially with the Republicans constantly fear mongering that it won't work. Just look at what happened with Obamacare, which was a far lighter attempt at universal health care than M4A would be - the Republicans pushed back so hard by way of a propaganda campaign, using the policy to retake the house, then continue watering down the bill by eroding its core features as well as challenging it in court - that the final product wound up being a shell of what its original intent was. Now consider how much more difficult it would be to get M4A, which is exponentially most expensive to the government, through that process without eroding any of its core features to destablize it from working. It will be a monumental task to get it passed.
Last edited:
Large numbers of people do not understand the alternative.
Many people think they will have to pay another tax And pay for Premiums.
The way to get it changed is to point to what exists now which is ridiculously expensive and point to M4A.
The explanations are straightforward.
Its not just that - its also "fear of government takeover" syndrome. The majority who are already fine with their current employer based plans are therefore not incentivized to rock the boat. That's why there needs to be a continued, healthy debate in the public space to talk up the benefits and debunk the fearmongering (which is already starting).
The inefficiency of for-profit medical insurance.
"The number of physicians in the United States grew 150 percent between 1975 and 2010, roughly in keeping with population growth, while the number of healthcare administrators increased 3,200 percent for the same time period."
https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/expert-forum-rise-and-rise-healthcare-administrator
"The number of physicians in the United States grew 150 percent between 1975 and 2010, roughly in keeping with population growth, while the number of healthcare administrators increased 3,200 percent for the same time period."
https://www.athenahealth.com/insight/expert-forum-rise-and-rise-healthcare-administrator
Why doesn’t the US just copy large portions of systems that are already in place in civilised countries?
Because the insurance, pharma, and other lobbies own enough politicians that they won't let it happen.
Because that would make entirely too much sense?
But seriously, there probably is an underlying American Exceptionalism that contributes to a resistance to taking the best of other countries because there is "a commitment to competitive individualism and self-determination; a deep anti-statist orientation" that is typically used in arguments against universal healthcare.
And also as Berba says now there is a very powerful lobbying interests opposing it.
Any discussion that doesn’t involve free healthcare for all should be shouted down straight away. Any such discussion is just another smokescreen for doing little to nothing to change the existing mess.
Which again brings up the great irony that the Founders/Framers so worshipped by those who cling the strongest to the idea of American Exceptionalism are the very people who looked at systems around the world and borrowed from them to create this country.
This is why I feel its important for everyone to study some history so everyone has basic foundation of reality.
Read the comments to this
this country is so screwed
Everyone who did not fight for a public option when they had the chance has blood on his hands.
A country that can afford $760bn on defence right there.
It makes me fecking sick (Sorry, probably not the best choice of words) and so angry. Yet still you hear these dumbass Republicans saying they don't want it because "socialism" and people scrounging or not paying for others etc... They are a bunch of nasty selfish cnuts. The hypocrisy being many are deeply religious too. It's appalling in this day and age one of the richest countries on Earth still can't provide free healthcare for all.
cnuts!
/Rant over.
cnuts!
/Rant over.
Eleven huge aircraft carriers are roaming the seas doing absolutely nothing (except for spending taxpayers' money), but we can't afford universal healthcare like all the other western countries do.
"The Trump op-ed says “the Democrats’ plan means that after a life of hard work and sacrifice, seniors would no longer be able to depend on the benefits they were promised.” In fact, current versions of the plan would actually add benefits to Medicare, like dental and vision, and would make care more affordable for seniors by eliminating most co-pays and deductibles...
Here, Trump plays to the refrain we’ve heard about Medicare for a long time now from both sides of the aisle: Medicare is becoming unsustainable. That’s true. But it’s exactly why we need Medicare-for-All...
How can including more people in Medicare both strengthen it and add benefits? While that may sound counterintuitive, there’s a perfectly good explanation. To be sustainable, any insurance system requires there to be more money paid into the insurance pool than is drawn out. Older people are usually sicker than their younger counterparts. That means their healthcare costs are higher, and they cost the system more...
And so it is with Medicare-for-All: healthcare costs would go up for the federal government, but costs would go down even more for employers, state governments, and most importantly, families (remember: you wouldn’t need to pay premiums to private insurance companies anymore). Even estimates from the Koch-funded Mercatus Center have shown that Medicare-for-All would save the American people literally trillions of dollars. So yes, Medicare-for-All is expensive. But it’s a lot cheaper than the current system.
And so it is with Medicare-for-All: healthcare costs would go up for the federal government, but costs would go down even more for employers, state governments, and most importantly, families (remember: you wouldn’t need to pay premiums to private insurance companies anymore). Even estimates from the Koch-funded Mercatus Center have shown that Medicare-for-All would save the American people literally trillions of dollars. So yes, Medicare-for-All is expensive. But it’s a lot cheaper than the current system.
A major way that Medicare-for-All saves money is by repairing the broken incentives in our current system.
When we lose ourselves in a complex policy debate, we forget why Medicare-for-All is good politics. The reasons are very simple: Too many of us don’t have healthcare. We spend too much on healthcare. And we hate our healthcare experience. Medicare-for-All solves all three of those problems. And that’s what every progressive ought to be saying right now.
-Dr. Abdul El-Sayed & Micah Johnson — Abdul is a physician, epidemiologist, and progressive activist who rebuilt Detroit’s Health Department after austerity and ran for Governor of Michigan in 2018. Micah is an MD candidate at Harvard Medical School and a healthcare policy researcher, writer, and advisor.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/caring-for-all
Here, Trump plays to the refrain we’ve heard about Medicare for a long time now from both sides of the aisle: Medicare is becoming unsustainable. That’s true. But it’s exactly why we need Medicare-for-All...
How can including more people in Medicare both strengthen it and add benefits? While that may sound counterintuitive, there’s a perfectly good explanation. To be sustainable, any insurance system requires there to be more money paid into the insurance pool than is drawn out. Older people are usually sicker than their younger counterparts. That means their healthcare costs are higher, and they cost the system more...
And so it is with Medicare-for-All: healthcare costs would go up for the federal government, but costs would go down even more for employers, state governments, and most importantly, families (remember: you wouldn’t need to pay premiums to private insurance companies anymore). Even estimates from the Koch-funded Mercatus Center have shown that Medicare-for-All would save the American people literally trillions of dollars. So yes, Medicare-for-All is expensive. But it’s a lot cheaper than the current system.
And so it is with Medicare-for-All: healthcare costs would go up for the federal government, but costs would go down even more for employers, state governments, and most importantly, families (remember: you wouldn’t need to pay premiums to private insurance companies anymore). Even estimates from the Koch-funded Mercatus Center have shown that Medicare-for-All would save the American people literally trillions of dollars. So yes, Medicare-for-All is expensive. But it’s a lot cheaper than the current system.
A major way that Medicare-for-All saves money is by repairing the broken incentives in our current system.
When we lose ourselves in a complex policy debate, we forget why Medicare-for-All is good politics. The reasons are very simple: Too many of us don’t have healthcare. We spend too much on healthcare. And we hate our healthcare experience. Medicare-for-All solves all three of those problems. And that’s what every progressive ought to be saying right now.
-Dr. Abdul El-Sayed & Micah Johnson — Abdul is a physician, epidemiologist, and progressive activist who rebuilt Detroit’s Health Department after austerity and ran for Governor of Michigan in 2018. Micah is an MD candidate at Harvard Medical School and a healthcare policy researcher, writer, and advisor.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/caring-for-all
They spent each year on defense 10 times as much as they have ever spent on cancer research. And still complain that they aren't spending enough.
America is morally corrupt and doesn't really care about it's citizens. If you have money then you can get the best of everything, if you don't have money you are basically fecked and nobody seems to give a damn. The American dream seems to be everybody for themselves and is a naturally selfish way of thinking.
Look after number one and if somebody needs help then too bad.
Look after number one and if somebody needs help then too bad.
Last edited:
I do find it incredible that in the world's richest country they can't offer any essentials for free. No free education, no free healthcare, nada. I've always said the state's can be an amazing place to live if you have money and a horrendous place to live if you don't. At least here in Europe we mostly take care of our less fortunate citizens. If the price to pay for that is more tax then so be it
Same. Think it's a bit of a contradiction to say you're the greatest and most powerful country on earth while having citizens die in their homes cause they can't afford a basic necessity
It defeats the purpose of being great entirely.
Yeah but freedom.
Never knew how bad Americans had it until my little sister went for uni. She had a skin rash. I had to send nearly $300 even before she could see the doctor. On another occasion, she paid $400 to have her urine sample checked. My other sister who's doing a PhD just spent a fortune to have an MRI done.
These are students ffs. And they even took some bullshit student medical insurance.
No wonder all their doctors are millionaires .
It does seem incredible - what also seems incredible is that so many American's appear to be totally indoctrinated into believing that America is the best country on the planet and nobody else comes close despite the evidence to the contrary. They simply ignore that and talk about how free they are in comparison to other countries which I think just means they can buy and carry a gun - as somebody who has no interest in owning or using a gun and frankly is very happy that they are not easy to obtain it is confusing to say the least.
The argument I often hear is why should a healthy person pay for a sick person's healthcare. It's so warped .Just a "me me me" mentality.
Yeah it's a culture based around what you can do for yourself rather than what you can do for other people.
The Democrats can pass single payer in the House. Make the Senate vote against it.
Compromise for a Public Option.
To have the Republicans vote against people on health care will be another punch against them in 2020.
The ACA allows states to have their own health exchanges. In Minnesota we are going towards a very affordable Public Option.
We do not need a super majority. Key point to remember is once people have basically public funded Health Care in several states, other states will fight for it.
Compromise for a Public Option.
To have the Republicans vote against people on health care will be another punch against them in 2020.
The ACA allows states to have their own health exchanges. In Minnesota we are going towards a very affordable Public Option.
We do not need a super majority. Key point to remember is once people have basically public funded Health Care in several states, other states will fight for it.
Why would any Republican vote for a public option ? Their platform is to undo Obamacare and return to the pre-ACA system of private insurance (minus pre-existing conditions)
Because Majority of people including Republicans want single payer or Medicare for All.
Health Care costs wont go down otherwise.
The time to go back to pre-Obamacare is over.
Then why didn't this majority you speak of vote in enough Dems in the Senate to make it happen ?
The simple point is this.
If it is right for the vast majority, you run on it and fight for it...unlike the previous candidate.
If it is right for the vast majority, you run on it and fight for it...unlike the previous candidate.
Fear of immigrants took over.
But that will be less effective.
in 2 years the Republicans will be defending a 22 seats. Dems 12. Only 2 of those in Trump states.
Trump will be limping to the elections.
Health Care will be even more important especially as it will become obvious it works in other states.