The debate "Any candidate that doesn't support healthcare for all should unacceptable in the Dem leadership race" was started by
July 29, 2019, 9:34 am.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 22 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 7 arguments, mwest0097 posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
historybuff, jbusey, bigbuttgal, mtbtheboss, johannaiscool, TheExistentialist, itzmeboi, codyray16, logan5689, Audrey23 and 33 visitors agree.
mwest0097, Nemiroff, vaibhav_Verma, vish, Rayyan989, NoctaRavage and 16 visitors disagree.
usa has public hospitals, although they are usually state or city run, not national. they still charge of course.
hospitals are not the problem. they still need money to survive, the question is where does that money come from, and all options have pros and cons.
1. the people: which leaves a disparity in who can afford healthcare, and the variable quality they can afford.
2. insurance companies: which creates a network of middlemen who work for a profit, and have a financial incentive to minimize approved treatments.
3. the government: creates a centrally planned solution, but if an error in planning is made, it can take long to correct.
I'm currently in hospital for 7 days. If I had put off coming in for another 24 hours my mortality risk would have increased considerably. My symptoms were just neck and chest pain. It was bearable and hardly something I'd worry about normally.
If I lived in the USA and had to pay for the initial check up I'd have put it off. It's just a bit of pain, what's the worst it can be? If I'd have done that it would have been too late. I'd either have died or required an expensive surgery to survive.
I'm so thankful Australia doesn't have a broken hospital system. I recognise the USA doesn't have public hospitals like we do, so a similar solution to us is more difficult, but the system in the USA is f***ed and any politician should be running to make people not fear the cost of healthcare.
This is an interesting clip I saw related to this issue. It is about 5 minutes long.
They discuss why you cannot have a middle ground. Either you fix the system or you leave it broken. Half measures like a public option don't fix the underlying problems with the system. They just help deal with some of the symptoms of the problem that are outright killing people. And while that is still an improvement, it isn't a fix. People, like the man they are talking about, are still going to die due to the broken system. Medicare for all would have saved that man's life. Kamela's plan would not.
You can skip to 30 seconds in to go past the useless into.
Please note that the topic says "doesn't support healthcare for all", not necessarily bernie's medicare for all plan. This would include other plans that accomplish the goal of providing care to everyone.
But you're kind of avoiding my point. There are no other plans to cover everyone that have any chance of working. There are some vague statements where people say they want to cover everyone, but they have no idea and no plan for how to do that. Biden keeps saying he wants all Americans to have coverage, but then he released a plan that doesn't do that. Saying you support a hypothetical plan that doesn't exist and likely couldn't work is not a valid position in my opinion.
If, at some point in the future, another candidate releases a plan that would cover everyone and might actually work then perhaps they may become an acceptable candidate. But at the moment there are no plans that have any chance of working except for Warren and Sanders. And honestly, even if someone like biden released such a plan, why would we believe him. Most of the centrists have been quite clear that they don't believe healthcare is a right. They put a higher priority on protecting the big companies than on helping sick people. So if they release some new plan why should anyone trust them to be the one to carry through when they have proven they don't believe in it? Why not trust someone who has been very clear for a very long time that this is what is needed?
i think the american people need to send a clear message to the establishment democrats. The people demand a system where everyone has health coverage. if you can't come up with a way to do that then you are not an acceptable candidate.
I gave her as an example and stated that a majority of candidates have plans that cover all Americans without implementing Medicare for all. this was in response to your claim that only Bernie and Warren have plans that cover all Americans. I specifically stated comparing plans is currently impossible to my knowledge.
most of the candidates said they have a plan for full coverage of some sorts. I didnt pick hers as an example, nor do most have sufficient details to compare them. i do support the general idea that many of these candidates said; pending fine print.
as I said before, implementing a new system while not keeping the old as a safety net has a high consequence if things go wrong. a job of this scale is bound to have many cracks, and Medical care is not somewhere you want people falling through cracks. I think jumping straight into Medicare for all is not only politically dangerous, but also reckless, and morally irresponsible. put politics aside and ensure that this massive nation of 330mil has a smooth and safe transition in their health system.
1) Her plan calls for rolling it out over 10 years. This means that even if she won a second term as president, she still wouldn't be there to complete the roll out. It requires that democrats continue to hold power for 10 consecutive years or it could be stopped, undermined or weakened by republicans. This is a huge weakness that makes it unlikely it would ever be fully implemented the way she intends. Taking too long to implement was one of the main reasons why obamacare became so unpopular. There was lots of time to attack it before anyone started to see the benefits. The result was that republicans hamstrung it before it ever got off the ground. Kamala's plan would be unlikely to ever be fully implemented.
2) there would still be out of pocket expenses in her plan. She says she would cap it at $200. But if your opening negotiating position is that she is open to having out of pocket expenses that doesn't bode well. Bernie's plan says no out of pocket expenses, ever. That is considerably better in my opinion.
3) Haris' plan would allow private insurance companies to target the healthy and wealthy people while refusing service to poor and sick people. This would offload alot of the costs of providing healthcare onto the government while allowing the profits generated by the heathcare system to flow to private companies. This is just terrible policy. It is government subsidizing for massively profitable companies.
Her plan has some of the benefits of Medicare for all. But it comes with massive drawbacks and it much less likely to ever by fully implemented. This system would make sure that a large extra cost is added to to the government but none of the revenue. It slows down the roll out to the point that it is unlikely to ever be successfully completed. So while her plan is better than what exists now, it is still nowhere near as good as Medicare for all.
I also consider it doubtful she actually believes in her plan. Her opinion on things keep changing. She signed onto the medicare for all bill. But when it looked like she might do better electorally to distance herself from it she jumped at the chance. If she thinks it would benefit her to walk back this plan too, I think she would do it. Bernie has been consistent in his vision for decades. I don't think there is any chance he will fundamentally change his position to benefit himself. He is simply much more trustworthy to implement what he says he will than Kamala is.
I dont think most of the candidates have fleshed out policies, just vague talking points. I'm not sure how to compare them beyond general concepts
a majority of the candidates claim to have plans that cover everyone, but keep private insurance. including Kamala harris.
private insurance would cost extra. the public option would be mostly tax supported. thus everyone is already paying into it.
why would healthy people pay premium for a private insurance when they could get free/nearly free public option?
A public option would never work. It would create a 2 tier system. People who are sick would end up getting pushed out of the private insurance system and onto the public one. You would have a system where all the healthy and affluent people are one one system and all the poor and sick people are on the other. Without relatively healthy people paying into the same system as the sick people, the cost of the public option would balloon out of control as they are having all of the costs offloaded onto them while all of the profits stay in the hands of private companies. You would also have republicans sabotaging the public option as much as possible so that they can point to the flaws and say "look public healthcare doesn't work".The system would then collapse and we end up right back where we started except now more people believe that public healthcare isn't viable.
In order to have a system work you need everyone paying into the same system. Then the relatively healthy people are paying into the same system as the very sick. This helps to keep the costs under control. The money then goes to supporting healthcare instead of providing record profits to private companies. if you allow the wealthy and the young to segregate themselves into a separate pool the system is doomed.
Also, could you clarify whose plan you support? I'm not aware of any politician advocating for healthcare plan that would cover everyone except for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. As far as i know all the other plans leave millions of people without coverage. If you could clarify what plan exactly you support I can then find more specific reasons why it would not work.
one can make healthcare a human right without uprooting the entire system. I'm absolutely saying universal healthcare. everyone will be covered. but im promoting it as a public option, not an absolute change before we have sufficient groundwork set up. imagine an established company like Amazon deciding to open up physical locations, but instead of doing a dozen or 2, they go from zero locations to thousands overnight. you think they will get it right? chaos, bottlenecks, errors, not only could the venture fail, it could bankrupt the company.
public or private it doesnt matter. both are run by humans and jumping all in is never smart. incrementalism is not a monolith. I'm not suggesting incremental changes to Obamacare. a public option is still a huge change AS WELL AS A GAURANTEE OF HEALTHCARE AS A RIGHT. it's a very big increment that is the ideal sweet spot in this situation.
if there are logistical errors in insurance for people who were not covered or under covered, they will likely be patient for a fix. but for union members with excellent, working insurance, which they negotiated at the expense of higher wages.... disruptions will be unacceptable and public opinion can shift away from a government system fast. the Republicans will try to sabotage anything we do so they arent even part of my equation. I'm not incrementing the change for their sake, but for logistics and efficacy's sake.
If democrats push to reform healthcare slowly they will be attacked and fought at every step by republicans and the health care industries. They will have lots of time to hammer on the plan in the media and make it look bad. They will have lots of time to try to undermine it in the courts and to block it wherever they can. Eventually a republican will get back into office and they will repeal or undermine the system as much as possible in the name of "freedom".
If you make healthcare a right that everyone is entitled to then it is impossible to take away. Republicans can't gut it or repeal it if everyone accepts that it is a right. Look at Obamacare. They campaigned for years that they would repeal it. But it became quite popular once people realized that republicans were going to take it away. So republicans had to quietly gut it and let it die on it's own.
To reform the system you need to make sure the message is clear, and do it fast. The current system is super complicated so the new one needs to be simple. Everyone gets covered all the time and there are no out of pocket expenses, ever. It's hard to slander a system saying they are taking your healthcare away when everyone is getting complete coverage. You need to do it fast so that republicans don't have enough time to try to undermine and slander it's implementation. Once people have access to healthcare they will like it. But up to that point they are susceptible to believing lies about what the system will be from right wing assholes.
There really only are 2 positions. You either want all people to get healthcare or you don't. All other democratic nominee's plans will result in hundreds of thousands of deaths due to not being able to afford healthcare. They will all drive thousands of people to bankruptcy in order to try to get medical care. Medicare for all does not.
I didn't mean to imply that those who don't want change shouldn't run. I meant that those who don't want change should be unacceptable to the electorate. I think it is a good thing that people like john delaney are running for the nomination. They are highlighting the fact that there really isn't a middle ground. The only options are to continue with a broken system or to actually fix the system. It also helps that he is pretty dumb and really arrogant so that he thinks he is really smart and totally right, while saying things are incredibly stupid.
I don't disagree with incrementalism in general. I think careful progress forward is a much better plan than revolution. The French revolution for example ended in alot of violence and death. If they had been able to make slower progress forward that chaos and upheaval could have been avoided. There are alot of issues in america where incrementalism is the much better plan.
The problem, both for the french and for america today, is that there is a massively powerful force that will fight to the death to prevent change. The various medical industries will do anything to prevent the system from getting fixed. They make absurd amounts of money abusing the system as it is. So while change might happen, it will be much, much slower and more watered down that it should be. And any changes to the system will be tailored to helping them and not actual sick people, because they have the money to bribe the people making the decisions.
We have already seen the results of this. Obama picked a republican health reform plan. Obamacare was initially a plan made up by a right wing think tank to reform the system and keep the insurance companies controlling the system and making a killing. With that right wing plan as his starting point he then tried to get it implemented and he got fought every step of the way. He was accused of wanting death panels and all sorts of other nonsense. Eventually the version of obamacare he ended up with was so right wing and watered down that it barely functioned. And now that he is out of office, it has basically collapsed entirely as the republicans gut it.
heres an argument against an instant shift to Medicare for all. the main complaint about the government is that they have a habit of screwing things up, like the Obamacare website debacle. this is not an argument against change, because the function of a website isnt a criticism of the program the website is meant to sign you up for, but if we screw up the healthcare rollout for everyone simultaneously... it will be chaos that might undermine the entire switch.
if you are someone who didnt have insurance and you get a sloppy roll out, no biggie. your used to rolling with the punches. but if you do have insurance that you like (union members who took pay cuts to negotiate great insurance benefits for example) and you screw up their coverage and leave them in the dark for weeks to months as it is fixed.... it will be outrage.
therefore in the meantime I support universal healthcare, but not an instant switch to Medicare for all. a public option is the best path. not everyone who speaks of moderation is an establishment shrill. such claims are extremist and fallacious. and democracy demands options. your declaration that those who disagree with you should not run is undemocratic. so not only do I disagree with your argument, I disagree with your underlying principle. jumping blindly into revolution could end up landing us on our heads and knocking the whole movement back, or killing it altogether.
a Medicaid option, will be vastly superior to private options. have less middleman cost, have far more clients and negotiating power, and will eventually become Medicare for all. it will also allow for a steady expansion, time to tweak the system, all while instantly providing universal coverage. it is the best option.
@mwest those sound like excellent arguments for medicare for all. There would be no premiums, no copays, no restrictions based on income. Everyone would get total healthcare coverage, full stop. It removes all the hurdles, it removes any stigma around medicare. It is no longer something for the poor, it is now a right for everyone. And once you give someone a right, it is almost impossible to take it away later. If Dems make changes to the ACA to try to fix it, republicans can later change things again to try to break it. if you make healthcare a right, trying to remove that right would be political suicide.
The reason the ACA is so bureaucratic and painful is because they were trying to make a broken system that was designed to maximize profits for the insurance industry and minimize coverage for sick people into a system that tries to protect poor people. But at it's core, that is the exact opposite of what everyone running the current system wants. They want to maximize their profits and they can't do that if they have to give medical care to poor people. So they did everything in their power to undermine and damage medicare. The harder it is to use, and the more loopholes they managed to put into it, the less viable the system became. They needed the ACA to be used by as few people as possible so they could continue to charge huge amounts for very little coverage.
It's possible that someone could keep the insurance companies in the system and just regulate the hell out of them to try to keep them from exploiting people. But why would you bother with that? They don't add anything. They bring no value. All they are is a bureaucratic middle man that wants to collect money and pay out significantly less money. If they don't actually offer any value, why would we want them to exist?
As for the ACA, it may have been an improvement in some areas, but it has made things more difficult for many people as well. It's been a big negative for a lot of low-middle class citizens in America. The ones who make enough to not qualify for Medicare but not enough to afford even the cheapest government insurance plan. They're between $300-$600 per month, and not for very much coverage. I barely make under the line that I'm allowed to use Medicare and pay a premium of just $2 a month, but if I made just a few cents more an hour, my only choice would be to hand over the extra money I make and most of what I was keeping before.
So essentially instead of having about $1200 a month to live on, I'd have $600 a month with worse insurance. a very big incentive to not try and get a better job. That's a huge issue in my mind. It's forcing people to stay under the poverty line because poverty is less expensive than slightly above the poverty line. To get to a point where it would be affordable to have a better wage, if need a pay raise of nearly 200%, which I am completely sure is not going to happen.
I'm American. As far as I know, there are no public hospitals that have to provide free healthcare. There are some free clinics and non-profits that choose to only charge what insurance will accept and provide all other care free of cost to the patient. But those places run on donations or government grants. And they are few and far between. Like there may be one or two in the lower populated states, and several in large, more liberal cities.
But if you get in a car wreck in America and someone calls and ambulance, you're going to get taken to a private hospital and charged thousands of dollars even if you do have insurance in most cases. Hundreds of thousands if you don't in many cases, depending on how many routine services they saddle you with. And it can all be done while you are unconscious whether you agree to it or not, and you just have to pay it.
I'm not american so i have never used their system. But to my understanding, virtually all hospitals are private hospitals. The ACA just provided some government backed health insurance for some people.
Fixing the american health care system is certainly going to be complicated. I don't think anyone believes it is easy. But the private sector has been running the show for years and years and they have completely failed. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying because they can't afford health care. Costs continue to rise unchecked. Drugs cost 10 times more in the US than just across the border in Canada. The system is fundamentally broken.
The insurance industry doesn't actually serve any purpose. They don't add any value. Their sole purpose is to take in lots of money and then try as hard as possible not to actually pay it back out when someone needs it. They are a parasitical industry. They have no reason to exist except to prey on sick people.
As to whether they should be compensated, I don't think that should be necessarily ruled out. But that is sort of a minor detail in my opinion. The critical point is fixing the system. How you deal with the parasites feeding off the old system definitely needs to be looked into, but should not be the top priority.
And no, they should not be consulted. Their goal is to make as much money as possible. This is completely antithetical to the whole point of medicare for all. Giving them a voice in the new system just gives them more opportunity to try to undermine the new system to suit themselves. You can see that kind of influence in the plans by Biden or Beto which in some cases just helps insurance companies to suck more money out of people.
In Australia, private hospitals don't need to provide free healthcare, it's only private insurance that gets you into private hospitals without paying hospital fees. That's the same system the USA has I believe. Providing free healthcare is a public hospital duty. Some private general practitioners opt into "bulk billing", but they have the choice to do that. Bulk-billing is where the government pays for the visit. So in Australia the private sector is still paid for by private health insurance.
But, in Australia 70% of hospitals are publicly owned so the government has the facilities to provide universal healthcare, whereas the USA has 16%, and most of which are just schooling related, so it does not have the facilities to provide healthcare itself. That means the solution will be vastly different to Australia or any country where the majority of hospitals are government owned.
That's why I believe universal health care is so difficult in the USA. The government needs to regulate the absolute f*** out of a private industry to make the services free for customers. Nationalising private insurance is a good solution I think, but it will obliterate a massive industry so should they be compensated? They should at least be consulted with.
There's no precedent for any of this. The ideas of nationalising an industry are very left-leaning and many centrists would shy away from that, even if the majority of the party want to do it.
The establishment is exactly the problem. Universal healthcare is hugely popular with democrats and independents. It is even kind of popular among republicans. Politicians have known for years that this is what people want but they keep refusing to go even close to it. One of the main reasons they wont is because the medical industry gives lavish amounts of money to politicians. I mean Biden's campaign chairman is an actual lobbyist for drug companies.
The reason people like Biden and buttigieg will never make any real improvements is because they get too much money from these companies. They want the approval of corporations more than they want the approval of actual voters.
The reason Donald trump got elected was because Trump promised change and the Dems offered more of the same. People want change in america. If the dems run another centrist, corporatist, schmuck then they will lose. There will be no energy behind a candidate like like Biden or Beto. They will flame out and let trump win. The Dems need a candidate that believes in real change.
At the moment the only ones that even want change, let alone would fight for it, are Sanders and Warren. The rest are either people people who don't want any kind of meaningful change or people who have no chance of winning the nomination. Biden said it best when talking to a room full of rich donors, "Nothing would fundamentally change" if he's elected.
too absolutist. even establishment politicians like Hillary and Pelosi referenced support for universal healthcare decades ago. they may support it personally, but fear the majority will not, electing another Republican who instead of taking slow steps forward, takes steps back.
they reason their options are more doable now, and if I remember correctly several (or at least 1) stated his compromise is a step.in that direction. something to be built on.
All the other plans that candidates have started to float like Biden and Beto all, by their basic design, will leave millions of people uninsured and therefore will result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
Here is a video describing some of the fundamental flaws in this line of thinking. Specifically she is talking about Biden's plan.
The large majority of the field of democrats trying to win the nomination do not support Universal Healthcare. Most want some kind of fiddling with the current system which has, quite simply, failed. Any candidate that wants to be the democratic nominee needs to be a supporter of universal healthcare because that is an issue that can A) save millions of lives and B) will beat trump in an election.