Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It’s hard to know where to begin to show just how radical Sanders’ plan really is.
But let’s start with this. There is no industrialized country in the world that has a government-run health care system as vast as the one Sanders proposes.
…
Plenty of other countries “guarantee” health care to their citizens, and pay most of the costs with tax dollars. But none promises first-dollar coverage for all health care, without limits.
…
In fact, there are no OECD countries where the government picks up the entire health care tab. In Canada, government spending accounts for 70% of health costs, in Germany, 85%, in Sweden it’s 83.9%, and in the U.K. it’s under 80%, according to OECD data.
There’s a good reason that even socialist countries don’t go as far as Sanders proposes: They all have firsthand experience with the massive budget problems caused by government-run health care, to say nothing of the chronic delays, waste and fraud they inevitably produce.
Sanders’ plan would also be massively disruptive.
To sell ObamaCare, President Obama at least pretended that “if you like your plan you can keep your plan.” Sanders guarantees that if you like your plan, you will lose it, and be shoved into government insurance.
Some people continue to run in the opposite direction of common sense. Better and more affordable health care should move towards less government intervention – not more.
It’s hard to know where to begin to show just how radical Sanders’ plan really is.
But let’s start with this. There is no industrialized country in the world that has a government-run health care system as vast as the one Sanders proposes.
… Plenty of other countries “guarantee” health care to their citizens, and pay most of the costs with tax dollars. But none promises first-dollar coverage for all health care, without limits.
… In fact, there are no OECD countries where the government picks up the entire health care tab. In Canada, government spending accounts for 70% of health costs, in Germany, 85%, in Sweden it’s 83.9%, and in the U.K. it’s under 80%, according to OECD data.
There’s a good reason that even socialist countries don’t go as far as Sanders proposes: They all have firsthand experience with the massive budget problems caused by government-run health care, to say nothing of the chronic delays, waste and fraud they inevitably produce.
Sanders’ plan would also be massively disruptive.
To sell ObamaCare, President Obama at least pretended that “if you like your plan you can keep your plan.” Sanders guarantees that if you like your plan, you will lose it, and be shoved into government insurance.
Some people continue to run in the opposite direction of common sense. Better and more affordable health care should move towards less government intervention – not more.
True that what he suggested is going too far, but then again it is a starting point for real discussion on the topic because as it has become apparent ACA was not the final or best solution and going back to the failure we had before is not even possible now. Maybe you can explain how less government intervention would actually make the situation better, from what the Repubs has submitted it would have been worse, hence why it did not and will not pass, so what makes it leaving it to the Insurance Industry better for the consumer?
It’s hard to know where to begin to show just how radical Sanders’ plan really is.
But let’s start with this. There is no industrialized country in the world that has a government-run health care system as vast as the one Sanders proposes.
…
Plenty of other countries “guarantee” health care to their citizens, and pay most of the costs with tax dollars. But none promises first-dollar coverage for all health care, without limits.
…
In fact, there are no OECD countries where the government picks up the entire health care tab. In Canada, government spending accounts for 70% of health costs, in Germany, 85%, in Sweden it’s 83.9%, and in the U.K. it’s under 80%, according to OECD data.
There’s a good reason that even socialist countries don’t go as far as Sanders proposes: They all have firsthand experience with the massive budget problems caused by government-run health care, to say nothing of the chronic delays, waste and fraud they inevitably produce.
Sanders’ plan would also be massively disruptive.
To sell ObamaCare, President Obama at least pretended that “if you like your plan you can keep your plan.” Sanders guarantees that if you like your plan, you will lose it, and be shoved into government insurance.
Some people continue to run in the opposite direction of common sense. Better and more affordable health care should move towards less government intervention – not more.
Do you really want a for-profit healthcare system with less government regulation? I can think of some bad things that might result, like healthcare companies keeping people sick for as long as possible rather than curing them. If it's all about the bottom line, healthcare companies wouldn't actually want to cure people because that's bad for business. If you're a private healthcare company, you would want to get people hooked on as many drugs as possible that only (claim to) treat the symptoms. Like antidepressants...but I digress.
We don't let the private sector run other public safety systems (like police and fire protection) for similar reasons. Do you want police companies who make money from every arrest? Do you want fire companies lobbying against fire prevention efforts in order to increase business?
True that what he suggested is going too far, but then again it is a starting point for real discussion on the topic because as it has become apparent ACA was not the final or best solution and going back to the failure we had before is not even possible now. Maybe you can explain how less government intervention would actually make the situation better, from what the Repubs has submitted it would have been worse, hence why it did not and will not pass, so what makes it leaving it to the Insurance Industry better for the consumer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Do you really want a for-profit healthcare system with less government regulation? I can think of some bad things that might result, like healthcare companies keeping people sick for as long as possible rather than curing them. If it's all about the bottom line, healthcare companies wouldn't actually want to cure people because that's bad for business. If you're a private healthcare company, you would want to get people hooked on as many drugs as possible that only (claim to) treat the symptoms. Like antidepressants...but I digress.
We don't let the private sector run other public safety systems (like police and fire protection) for similar reasons. Do you want police companies who make money from every arrest? Do you want fire companies lobbying against fire prevention efforts in order to increase business?
If people want a good quality of health care that is affordable, who cares if people make money off of it? They are providing a service just like electricity, water, cable, Apple, etc.
I want people doing health care who are professionals that know the industry inside and out. I want competition to keep prices in check. I want people who are solely focused on providing quality health care and are interested in helping people. I want a consistent regulatory environment where they know what to expect, so they can freely concern themselves with patients rather than costly busybody paperwork.
When you are interested in helping people, and customers and patients have a relationship - they will be less likely to hike up prices.
With government - the overhead is massive because the government is involved. They can tie themselves with other governmental agencies and complicate the process and control people's behavior. There is no personal attachment with the patient. The opportunities for fraud are massive. You have an uninterested third party responsible for paying the bills to the doctor - which creates a disconnect.
You remove the government from the process, and that alone will drain the swamp with regards to health care costs.
Freak80 - I challenge you to go into a healthcare facility and claim that "healthcare companies wouldn't actually want to cure people because that's bad for business." There is no way you can make that claim if you truly understood what health care workers have to deal with on a daily basis. My wife is in health care. I hear about this stuff on a regular basis... it's a mess right now. I'm sure you can find an outlet or two in the country focused on fraudulent behavior. 99.5% of health care workers, facilities, etc. care about their patients.
If people want a good quality of health care that is affordable, who cares if people make money off of it? They are providing a service just like electricity, water, cable, Apple, etc.
I want people doing health care who are professionals that know the industry inside and out. I want competition to keep prices in check. I want people who are solely focused on providing quality health care and are interested in helping people. I want a consistent regulatory environment where they know what to expect, so they can freely concern themselves with patients rather than costly busybody paperwork.
When you are interested in helping people, and customers and patients have a relationship - they will be less likely to hike up prices.
With government - the overhead is massive because the government is involved. They can tie themselves with other governmental agencies and complicate the process and control people's behavior. There is no personal attachment with the patient. The opportunities for fraud are massive. You have an uninterested third party responsible for paying the bills to the doctor - which creates a disconnect.
You remove the government from the process, and that alone will drain the swamp with regards to health care costs.
Freak80 - I challenge you to go into a healthcare facility and claim that "healthcare companies wouldn't actually want to cure people because that's bad for business." There is no way you can make that claim if you truly understood what health care workers have to deal with on a daily basis. My wife is in health care. I hear about this stuff on a regular basis... it's a mess right now.
But the facts contradict the assertion that government-run healthcare systems must necessarily be more expensive than private healthcare systems:
Some people continue to run in the opposite direction of common sense. Better and more affordable health care should move towards less government intervention – not more.
We had that since the founding of the country, and no, it wasn't affordable, and getting worse year by year.
That's a big fail on your part. If you don't know that you must be pretty young, or isolated in some way.
Well bottom line, private health care takes 21% off the top, Medicare 5%. See all the new upscale buildings the "non profit" healthcare companies are putting up and the salaries and bonus's they are paying.
Generally I'm a conservative and voted for Trump because of a multitude of things but our healthcare is in a real mess and personally my Medicare is great. It would be good to gradually phase in Medicare for all by age groups starting at the age 60, then dropping to 50, etc.
All these stories on wait times etc, all one has to do is get another policy to cover those issues like a Medigap policy, problem solved. Need more doctors? Open up the medical schools and stop the AMA from restricting them.
JMO though.
For sure.... Liberals and (here's that disgusting word again) "resisters" continue to obstruct and block any and all progress being made in this country. They are so full of themselves and their "all about me" agenda, that they lack any common sense at all. These people crave the government taking care of them. Of course, they want free everything.
Well bottom line, private health care takes 21% off the top, Medicare 5%. See all the new upscale buildings the "non profit" healthcare companies are putting up and the salaries and bonus's they are paying.
Generally I'm a conservative and voted for Trump because of a multitude of things but our healthcare is in a real mess and personally my Medicare is great. It would be good to gradually phase in Medicare for all by age groups starting at the age 60, then dropping to 50, etc.
All these stories on wait times etc, all one has to do is get another policy to cover those issues like a Medigap policy, problem solved. Need more doctors? Open up the medical schools and stop the AMA from restricting them.
JMO though.
Excellent post. Spot on!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
