Home | About | Donate

A Public Option Won’t Save Us. The Sick and Disabled Need Medicare-for-All

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/12/16/public-option-wont-save-us-sick-and-disabled-need-medicare-all

2 Likes

Casting a vote for the lesser of two evils and doing nothing more is not an act of decency; it is an act of violence.

Tell that to AOC.

~https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/12/the-case-for-forcing-a-floor-vote-on-medicare-for-all

Sorry I’m not nice enough to your sacred cows.

4 Likes

Optional anything cant be sustainably public it has to be privatized in countries like ours that have committed to all the many commitments we have which literally lock that in.

If they wanted us to have any wiggle room at all they wouldnt have made all these commitments to entangle us in this web that they did.
For profit healthcare is for profit. Its not public.

What we have would be called either services of general economic interest (Its an EU term) or simply services as defined under the GATS.

Both aren’t allowed to be what people want. What people want is only allowed if it existed before 1994 and has never been changed, like Canada’s.

People who have money have to spend it. They cant get a better deal than corporations give them. The way people get affordable healthcare in the US is by finding a commercial provider that they can buy it from. Eventually, they will be able to use the payments they get from their annuities to pay for care overseas. This will save the government money because its much cheaper, it will also improve the profitability of the corporations that sell it to them. However the responsibility will be via contract between their insurer and the foreign provider, so 100% private and corporate. It will be transnational between their insurer and the foreign provider. (private international law?) I think people can read a bit about that kind of arrangement here.

~https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2324078

Here is why countries like ours and the UK, etc, cant get the kind of tierless healthcare Canada can. We cant compete unfairly with commercial sellers. Also, all deregulations have to be permanent, so we cant just say were reversing any of these changes, they have made it so they lock in, like ratchet or noose.
~https://www.allysonpollock.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Lancet_1999_Price_WTODomesticPolicies.pdf

1 Like

RIP Nicholas Skala

d. August 8-9 2009

The last date they were supposed to do this.

1 Like

Amen. I agree.

2 Likes

This article is a little disingenuous on several levels. Basically, if the electorate voted to have healthcare in your state through Medicaid expansion (NOT MEDICARE) your healthcare needs including custodial care would be covered until approved by Medicare. While it is true that Medicare doesn’t cover everything, by waiver even if you have above average income if your medical needs exceed your capacity, it will also meet that need. It is designed so that the wealthy have to pay more because they have more. It is called a share of cost. That doesn’t change under M$A or reduce the cost of healthcare it just changes how it is paid for. You don’t have to eliminate Medicaid to do that, you can stop defunding these programs, (and stop deregulating private insurance) and adjust requirements, and require those states that have chosen not to provide care to meet the medical needs of their residents to provide it. Why, because M$A doesn’t really address the issue of healthcare costs and there are better ways to do that. Pharmaceuticals just get a blank check. And patients are still faced with medical segregation, while some will do better, others will not. F*** That.

Either way, Medicare is Medicare the difference is the funding of alternative resources.

Tenet Hospitals have already extended into the U.K healthcare system. They have quite a few hospitals there. And welcome to the commodification of health care. (note we are the commodity) and you don’t have to think at all, there is nothing to decide, just sign here. It is cheaper that way.

1 Like

Single Payer / Medicare For All DOES reduce the cost of health care. As shown by study after study after study.

The article is not at all disingenuous. It does a great job of explaining the dilemma of the disabled.

1 Like

Yes, I agree. It is a cost saving bill, it is the way it reduces costs that is the issue.

Oh please it is written by a college professor, a very select representation of disablility…

Help is on the way----listening to Nina Turner on DN----and we need 100 Nina Turners running--------They don’t want Sanders -----here comes Nina and a lot more like her.

2 Likes

A placebo sold as a panacea

1 Like

My understanding of the US system is that before a lot of those benefits that would be provided by the State can kick in the person applying for such aid has to also empty all of their bank accounts . If the person worked and set aside $50000 in lifes savings for their elderly years, they insist that money be used first.

My Aunt had MS and spent many years in long term care. When she passed away all of the money she had in her bank account (some inherited from a sister) was still there for the most part. The government did not go after that.

1 Like

For many years Private for profit companies have tried to get a foothold in Canada claiming that they can help fill gaps in Canada’s health care sector such as lowering waiting lists for elective surgery by offering no waits to those that can afford it.

Provinces and advocacy groups have fought this for just as long as they claim as soon as this allowed to happen to any great degree , the tiers of health care created will sabotage the entire system.

1 Like

That has some truth, but actually there is a two year window before you apply for benefits to decide about financial decisions. Homes are protected/exempt as long as a living relative is living in the home. These rules change about what share of cost is. The government can ask for some types of money but they can’t take it. If you have thousands of dollars in the bank and apply for medicaid you won’t be eligible unless your medical needs exceed that. If you are poor you just stay poor.

There is a lot you don’t understand about the GATS thats shown by the lackadaisical way you frame this. Make no mistake about it, if they become involved on any level at all you WILL LOSE your Medicare.

Unassailable proof is in the note here, Understand it! They are LYING to you and us ALL if they say any differently. They are taking advantage of the lack of case law to trick countries.

~https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S007.aspx?SymbolList=%22S%2FC%2FW%2F50%22+OR+%22S%2FC%2FW%2F50%2F*%22&AllTranslationsCompleted=1&MetaCollection=WTO&Id=35157&PageAnchorPosition=35157&SearchPagePageNumber=10&SearchPageCurrentIndex=0&SearchPageViewStatePageIndex=0&SearchPageStartRowIndex=0&returnedPage=FE_S_S006.aspx&IsNotification=False&LeftTabFieldText=&NumberOfHits=1&DreReference=&Query=&Context=&btsType=&IsEnglishSelected=&IsFrenchSelected=&IsSpanishSelected=&IsAllLanguageSelected=&SearchPage=FE_S_S001&SourcePage=&Language=&

Explanation in this Lancet article.

but there is a typo in the references, they ARE referring to the S/C/W50 Note document above

~https://www.allysonpollock.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Lancet_1999_Price_WTODomesticPolicies.pdf

See also Health Affairs

~http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/23/3/137.long

1 Like

Oh we will not lose our medicare. Indeed there a proposal to expand on it. You have been trumpeting this every single post. You are fixated on the topic.

GATS only applies to sectors a given Government agrees to enter. The health care system is off the board in Canada.

These are the sectorss the Government of Canada has agreed to enter Under GATS.

Distribution Services
Computer and Related Services
2004 Consultations on Services Trade Negotiations
Environmental Services
Financial Services
Management Consulting Services
Mining Services
Oil and Gas Services
Professional Services
Real Estate Services
Research and Development Services
Telecommunications Services
Tourism and Travel Related Services
Transportation Services

Health care is not committed to .

In addition on entering into agreement on any given sector a Government can detail exemptions.

You are trying to suggest the USA has no choice in the matter. Of course they have a choice. They could implement medicare for all tomorrow if they wished to.

1 Like

How could a firm possibly sell health insurance in Canada with your government unfairly competing with it.

You have no idea what you’re dealing with here or how obsessed it is with control.

Healthcare costs are a huge potential weapon against the poor, just ask any American, don’t forget we never outlawed slavery.

RIGHT Suspiria, and WE MADE IT we committed more than a half dozen relevant services, as the literature shows over and over again, we made the choice, officially, in the early 90s.

The US is not a public healthcare or public anything friendly country, look at what happened to Ontario when you tried to institute a single payer AUTO INSURANCE PLAN after you joined the US-Canada FTA, then NAFTA and WTO…

I dare you, you need to know that story.

You’re wrong about it not being committed too. Youre being outsmarted, if I am kind but I suspect either that or you are one of those Canadian work at home sock puppets hired by the US sock puppet firms to confuse these issues.

Scott Sinclair of Policy Alternatives explains the situation in Canada on Youtube. At the WTO Public Forum, he and Sanya Reid Smith are in two videos posted by PSI. I cannot believe you are possibly as stupid as you are pretending to be, nor any of the other probable sock puppets here. If you are one, I hope you remember this, Youre killing people, lots of people. And youre going to pay. Someday.
Read

Putting Health First | Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
~https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/putting-health-first

When it sinks in how badly we’ve been tricked, I would not want to be one of those asshole politicians who did this.

Because its a crime against humanity, the biggest one since world war two.

The Canadian Government does not sell health Insurance. I do not buy Health insurance from the Government . Private health insurance in Canada is still available and the industry prospers. I can get private health insurance if I wished.

They have had this system since the 1960s.

In 2011 The Harper Government tried to weaken the system under CETA and failed to do so. Nothing SIGNED into law affects the Canadian system. That does not mean a future Government will not do this but that applies to every Government in the world. Canada has a choice. they can dismantle the system if they CHOOSE to but nothing is forcing them to do that. The USA also has a choice.

Do not compare the USA to Canada. You do not have a universal system and your Government chose to keep health care services under the for profit model. This was not forced on them.

Oh and we have a provincially run auto-insurance here in British Columbia. I buy my auto insurance through ICBC which is owned by the Government. ICBC is under no threat to be dismembered by WTO agreements. It has been in place since 1984.

Indeed, our public health services are only partially privatized through PPP how could anyone expect the expansion of Trade Agreements to include multinational that supply the functional part of healthcare, like PPEs, hospitals, to not include staff and patients. I guess it is because Americans or even Canadians never look at this as a policy issue. Don’t worry, they will eventually.