Home | About | Donate

Democratic Voters Rank Bernie Sanders as 'Most Qualified' 2020 Candidate to Solve US Healthcare Crisis

Thank you for the detailed response. To answer your questions:

  1. Yes, conceivably M4A will result in less administrative burden than our current system. However, our current system isn’t a privatized system. It’s a weird, more than 50% socialized system already, with the remaining portion so hyper-regulated that it cannot be described as a “privatized system.” No other industry can compare. Not even banking. This hyper-regulation explicitly creates the administrative burden. So it’s a bit of a straw man to say that M4A reduces administrative burden versus privatization.
  2. What I said was that larger, more profitable, health systems will be able to shoulder the significantly reduced revenue better than smaller ones, and would probably necessitate another major round of consolidation. This shouldn’t surprise you. Heightened regulation that either increases fixed costs or narrows revenue sources usually does this to any industry. Just look at the automobile, pharmaceutical, banking, and existing healthcare provider industry.
  3. [quote=“baska, post:40, topic:66512”]
    M4A will carry out its purpose of providing better care to all people for less money.
    [/quote]
    “Carry out its purpose” means nothing. I can carry out my intended purposes of flying to the moon. Doesn’t mean I’ll succeed. The only thing M4A does is reduce the number of payors to one. The unintended consequences are numerous. The government now implicitly decides what care will and will not be administered. The incentives for innovation and R&D are strictly limited once the revenue source controls everything. And the single revenue source results in either two directions: provide less care, or have more waiting lines. That’s why you see places like Venezuela that are decrepit. Even in Canada the waiting lines are far longer than in America.
  4. And lastly (and you tacitly noted this in one of your last sentences), socialist programs always end up with a much higher price tag than originally advertised. If the price tag rises to far higher than Sanders is originally purporting (which was my original argument), wiping out the so-called “savings,” are you still going to support it?

Do you want M4A because it’s socialist or because you irrationally think it will save money? That’s my question. Because no rational person can actually believe that Sanders’ current price tag of $30+ trillion will actually be the real number once administered.

“Yes, conceivably M4A will result in less administrative burden than our current system.”

“Conceivably”? Uh-uh - that’s not what you argued. After looking at the articles on administrative costs - which your first post failed to factor in - your 2nd post clearly (although grudgingly) allowed that administrative cost savings would offset lower payments - but only in large hospitals. Remember?:

“[The articles] claim that the savings from the administrative burden of having so many different payors would more than offset the severe decline in revenue…In some cases that will happen. In many other cases it won’t. The answer isn’t the same across the board.”

Whether the administrative costs of processing insurance claims is due to regulation is a whole separate, unsupported claim; the question now - that your post fails to address - is generally whether M4A proposals have factored in reduced hospital income, and specifically the idea that giving low profit rural hospitals more money than high profit hospitals can contain the overall cost of M4A.

“No rational person can actually believe that Sanders’ current price tag…will actually be the real number once administ-”

“No rational person can actually believe”? If you want to have an argument where I take you seriously and act respectfully, you’ll have to do better than that. Starting now.

I only said that conceivably M4A could have less administrative burden than the current system. But the current system isn’t a private system either. It’s more than 50% socialist already.

I could never support that insane idea. That’s actual communism in which a government bureaucracy dictates what each hospital will receive. How in the world could you not see the unintended consequences? You’d favors given to certain system. You’d have bribes, like you do in Venezuela. Your have an incredible amount of power in a select group of people. That idea is doomed to fail just like how every other purely socialist idea of the sort has collapsed.

You talk as if all this is new and never been tried. Most of the developed world runs universal, single payer healthcare systems. How to run and fund a single payer, universal healthcare system is well known. I’m not saying it is easy, but it is certainly far more cost-effective and efficient than the existing for-profit system. Just eliminating around 80% of the current admin overhead and middleman costs, along with covering everyone, young and old, rich or poor, must be the reason for dramatic changes. God knows we’re long overdue. http://bit.ly/JFK-healthcare

1 Like

I suppose the Medicare-for-All Democrats are all behind Medicare-for-All candidates. But the moderate, undecided voter like myself doesn’t believe we should jump into MFA after seeing what happened with the ACA. I say fix the ACA and go from there. Sure, every American should be guaranteed basic health care, but only when we have a clear path forward.

The problem with polling using cell phones is that most unknown callers are blocked. This is due to the robo-call epidemic we are all experiencing. So if the pollsters number is not known, it’s blocked.

1 Like

de Blasio’s view is more than mere opinion. It’s backed by evidence. During the 2016 primary season, pollsters across the political spectrum conducted 150 voter surveys pitting Sanders and Clinton not against each other but against GOP contenders including a certain reality-show blowhard. I tallied these polls. Sanders outperformed Clinton 135 times out of 150 — 90 percent of the time — while she showed disturbing signs of electoral weakness. These findings are posted in detail at BernieWorks.com. Bottom line: Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump, and we would be living in a different world.

2 Likes

Jerry, I agree everyone should be guaranteed basic health coverage. Under the ACA, 30 million people lack any coverage at all. See results at MedicareForAll.us.

Peer-reviewed statistical studies show that for every 800 people who lack health coverage, 1 will die each year. In formal terms, within this cohort (n = 800) annual mortality increases by 1.

Now do the math. Keeping the ACA is like randomly slaughtering more than 36,000 men, women and children a year. This death toll is like a 9/11 catastrophe striking our nation each month, every month without end. Every day another 100 body bags pile up. Another 100 grieving families.

If you are not willing to be complicit in this mass murder, then please contact your Congress member and demand single-payer Medicare for All, HR 1384.

1 Like

Thank you.
I am sure robo calls annoy everyone.
Even Dick Durbin, Illinois senator -
who has them sent out on his behalf to Illinois voters. Per his tv news appearance.

The cell phone companies could block these after the source is identified.
Maybe the customers should receive $1.00 refund for each incoming
robo call.

“the moderate, undecided voter like myself doesn’t believe we should jump into MFA after seeing what happened with the ACA.”

“What happened with the ACA”? What happened with the ACA is it had a bad rollout followed by - despite the basic crappiness of its coverage - broader acceptance because enough people see it as better than nothing, making it harder for the right to kill it.

Canada’s healthcare has lines (for basic procedures) and coverage gaps; but they’d never trade it for the horrors of the US’s dysfunctional system, with its bottom-of-the-barrel among advanced countries health outcomes. Likewise, the right is quite aware that once people experience the ‘coddling,’ ‘mommy state,’ ‘collectivist’ benefits of a single payer system, they’ll never want to go back.

1 Like

“I only said that conceivably M4A could have less administrative burden than the current system.”

No, as I patiently pointed out to you, that is not what you “only said.” You said:

"“[The articles] claim that the savings from the administrative burden of having so many different payors would more than offset the severe decline in revenue…In some cases that will happen . In many other cases it won’t. The answer isn’t the same across the board.”

“In some cases that ” - the offsetting claimed - “ will happen;” not “conceivably… could ” happen.

At this point, the issue is no longer healthcare or a debate-type criterion of ‘consistency of argument.’ The issue is now personal accountability: I should never have had to refer you to your own words once; twice is a deal breaker.

Brucebennett: I agree with you but I think that all your filthy Saxon words are not helping your cause. Usually when I see that a writer is foul mouthed I just erase.

I guess that means that you wouldn’t listen to much of George Carlin, either. He also has a “potty mouth” like me and he is one of my comedy heroes.

RIGHT

James Wilson McGillivray, M.D., F.R.C.S.C., F.A.C.S. 15 Saint Vincent Street Collingwood, Ontario L9Y 1N9
Tel. (705) 445-5090
Cel. (705) 444-9334
Email: jwmcgillivray@rogers.com

It’s not crazy - you feel that is the wrong path, but it isn’t crazy if a) that is the way Canadian hospitals are run and this is the closest example to what the M4A bills are and b) this is the way schools in the US are run.

I gurarantee there are metrics used in tracking hospital performance in Canada and there would be here. There is a big difference with tracking metrics and tracking every damn ibuprofen or band-aid an individual patient uses.

Yes, our trash public school system is run this way. Are you saying our public school system is well-run? Now that would be crazy.

Huh? I’m saying that your solution is a one-size-fits all idea. In some cases at certain hospitals the lack of revenue will be offset by the reduced administrative burden. However, for numerous hospitals that won’t be the case and they’ll fail.

Your communist solution to that problem of having top-men in Washington dictate how much money each hospital deserves based on need is insane. That strategy is what has driven other communist countries into the ground through inefficiency and corruption.

And in your plan, who’s paying for R&D and innovation? This is yet another clear reason why socialist countries stagnate and decline.

I went to public school my whole life save for kindergarten and 1st grade. That private school was top notch and I did get more advanced instruction (multiplication tables, composing paragraphs on the chalkboard, etc.) but I got a pretty good public education following and decent jobs as do many. If all schools were private and could be as good as the private school I went to and we we had public assistance for the poor who couldn’t afford it, I’d say sure - I’d be willing to do it that way. On the medical side, we’ve tried subsidizing the poor and forcing business to cover the medical insurance costs, and in my opinion and many many others, it is a failing approach. I’m sick of the complexity, I’m sick of the networks and the doctor I want being out of network, and I’m sick of hearing the ridiculous stories of other people’s nightmares like being told they went to the wrong ER when they were unconcious.

I’m actually pretty conservative when it comes to a couple things - most law and order issues being one area. And from a parenting perspective, I’m for strict discipline where deserved. If you ask me, the insurance companies are like kids who have completely and utterly messed up and I’m taking away all their toys and telling them to go do something else.

My point on crazy is that you seem to be using it for a saying that a policy is economically suicidal, when that clearly isn’t true. Canada’s economy moves forward as do many other countries with much more public sector insurance than we have. And they do better in certain health metrics than we do. I get it that you have different values than most of us here, but what we are suggesting isn’t crazy for our values and of course we will try to out organize and out vote you.

“My point on crazy is that you seem to be using it for saying that a policy is economically suicidal, when that clearly isn’t true.”

Most kind and patient…but, in my humble opinion, it is not up to you to figure out what intention or meaning might lie behind an intellectually lazy, unsupported, disrespectful broadside…

Making an effort to engage in good faith argument with a minority opinion is one thing…turning the other cheek to their stupid sh*t - something else.

1 Like