I think the inverse sticker shock is just that significant medical care does not cost a lifetime savings in other countries. So, you still have to pay a lot of the cost, but the price tag is just like in a different universe. Happened with good friends of mine visiting Germany. Their daughter broke her leg, and they had a reasonable bill at the end, assumed Germany was covering most of it, but Germany was covering very little of it. It just simply didn't break the bank to break a leg.
When I was stationed in South Korea, the Korean national I worked with and I had a discussion about our respective country’s health care systems. He was absolutely amazed by the expense of ours and that people could be in such financial disarray after care.
Also possible. 1. My father injured his wrist. My mother broke her tailbone, I broke my clavicle and separated my shoulder, and my mom's uncle injured his spine, had an operation, and stayed in the hospital for 3 weeks with therapy and follow up treatment. There were medications, x-rays, and followups during that time for all of us. The total cost for all of it totaled either less than $100 or less than $200. I do remember if we had wanted my mom's uncle to have his own room, we would have been able to pay more, but we went with the standard deal. 2. We became friends with one of the doctors and her family while we were there. She had our family over to her house several times for dinner and to hang out. I remember that they weren't poor, but they definitely made less than doctors in the U.S. The cost of the doctors and treatments were definitely less. So that was a part of it.
The bigger issues is democrats trying to out stupid each other on this because they saw Trump win by outstupiding his other opponents on touchy issues. But it's swinging away sensible voters who lean left as well as independents. Why not go after big AG and provide better food options to those dealing with chronic illness? Lot of costs go to pills with patents that people shouldn't really be taking. Doctor salaries and equipment are always going to be high in America you're not suddenly changing that.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/m...-to-trump-2019-11-11?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo Mark Cuban shreds Elizabeth Warren’s proposals, compares her to Trump ‘The Senator is like every other candidate. She is selling shiny objects to divert attention from reality. Haven’t we had enough of that from @realDonaldTrump.’
That's not her plan. Companies will pay a per-head fee to the government in lieu of what many of them pay to insurance companies. Much of the remaining expense is paid by taxes on the super-wealthy, of which you are not one. So you won't pay more tax than you do now. Neither do illegals pay their own way via sales tax. You (and the illegal immigrants) will, of course, shoulder some burden for illegal immigrants that's built into the prices of the products you buy from companies that are assessed a fee to cover M4A. Fine if you want to have a problem with that. But, at least understand the mechanism.
Are you just going to ignore the links he posted? Are you sure you everything that was involved in those bills and the why the bill was so small?
The were for specific nations and not part of the nation where I personally experienced their healthcare. It also doesn't change the fact that if there would be a wait for a medical procedure in the UK they will fly citizens to other nations to get their procedure. I'm not an accountant now, and I certainly wasn't one as a teen before I was old enough to drive.
You still ignored the links. Anyway just keep an open mind and we can all have a reasonable discussion on topics the really mean something. Don't know what the situation was in New Zealand but the poster showed actual evidence that those things don't apply to Canada and the UK.
That's certainly not the mechanism she was talking about during the debates. If this is her new plan then that's fine. We'll just be subsidizing in a different way as you mention.
"I have a plan for that" pass the math test for this economist, who isn't a fan of M4A. Economist: Warren is right. Her Medicare for All plan won't raise taxes on the middle class It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Medicare for All. That's why I'm impressed that Senator Elizabeth Warren's campaign reached out to me to independently review her proposed financing plan for the program. Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle-class families. The most important source of revenue for Warren's Medicare for All plan is simply to have businesses pay their employees' health insurance premiums to Medicare instead of private insurance companies. Over time, businesses would be required to pay slightly less to Medicare for health insurance than they would otherwise have paid to private insurers. New small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would not be required to make these payments. There has been some handwringing that this would be regressive. That is, lower-paid workers would suffer, since businesses would pay more for lower-paid workers' health insurance as a percent of their pay than for higher-paid workers. But companies' current premiums generally vary by the type of insurance plan and family size, and not by employee income. Warren's Medicare for All plan effectively preserves this. And by replacing trillions of dollars in individual spending on health care with new taxes on large corporations and the rich, her plan overall is clearly progressive. ... I don't agree with Warren's vision for our health care system, but I admire that she has clearly and credibly laid out that vision and that she sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers. That's the kind of rigor we should expect from all of our presidential candidates.
1. You did not say one specific country in New Zealand. You said it broadly about the concept of universal care: "Well, visitors to countries with universal healthcare who need healthcare in those nations get to partake. It's fair." 2. New Zealand is an extremely isolated country - it doesn't have undocumented visitors due to a massive ocean around it. If a country like the US or Canada offered this, it would be a nightmare. For example, if Canada offered free health to anyone, everyone in the US who had a health issue would just be visiting Canada and solving it for free, especially in border states where it's just a short drive away. We wouldn't have a major health care crisis here because Canada would just be subsidizing everything. 3. I know nothing about your experience in NZ, but here are their rules: https://www.govt.nz/browse/health/public-health-services/getting-publicly-funded-health-services/ You are not eligible for free universal health care unless you are one of the following: You might be able to access free or subsidised health and disability services if you’re: a NZ citizen or permanent resident an Australian citizen or permanent resident who’s lived, or intends to live, in NZ for at least 2 years a work visa holder who's eligible to be here for 2 years or more under 17 and your parent or guardian is eligible an interim visa holder who was eligible immediately before you got the interim visa a New Zealand Aid Programme student receiving Official Development Assistance funding a commonwealth scholarship student a refugee or protected person, or in the process of applying or appealing for refugee or protection status a victim of people trafficking. You, on vacation to NZ, would not get free healthcare today. It might have been different whenever you were a teen, but healthcare is a lot more expensive worldwide today. Without having done any research, I doubt there's any country where everyone - resident, guest, or undocumented - just gets free health care.
Fair enough. I know their healthcare did change since I was there. I wasn't aware of the different changes.
And there it is. "I have a plan" for transitioning to M4A. Much more details at the link. Start with an option, then transitions to M4A by the 3rd year (3rd year would be after a mid-term which means likely a less chance of a friendly Congress). https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/m4a-transition Every serious proposal for Medicare for All contemplates a significant transition period. Today, I’m announcing my plan to expand public health care coverage, reduce costs, and improve the quality of care for every family in America. My plan will be completed in my first term. It includes dramatic actions to lower drug prices, a Medicare for All option available to everyone that is more generous than any plan proposed by any other presidential candidate, critical health system reforms to save money and save lives, and a full transition to Medicare for All. Here’s what I'll do in my first 100 days: I’ll pursue comprehensive anti-corruption reforms to rein in health insurers and drug companies – reforms that are essential to make any meaningful health care changes in Washington. I’ll use the tools of the presidency to start improving coverage and lowering costs – immediately. I’ll reverse Donald Trump’s sabotage of health care, protect individuals with pre-existing conditions, take on the big pharmaceutical companies to lower costs of key drugs for millions of Americans, and improve the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, and Medicaid. I will fight to pass fast-track budget reconciliation legislation to create a true Medicare for All option that’s free for tens of millions. I won’t hand Mitch McConnell a veto over my health care agenda. Instead, I’ll give every American over the age of 50 the choice to enter an improved Medicare program, and I’ll give every person in America the choice to get coverage through a true Medicare for All option. Coverage under the new Medicare for All option will be immediately free for children under the age of 18 and for families making at or below 200% of the federal poverty level (about $51,000 for a family of four). For all others, the cost will be modest, and eventually, coverage under this plan will be free for everyone. And finally, no later than my third year in office, I will fight to pass legislation that would complete the transition to full Medicare for All. By this point, the American people will have experienced the full benefits of a true Medicare for All option, and they can see for themselves how that experience stacks up against high-priced care that requires them to fight tooth-and-nail against their insurance company. ...
Don't like this new add with Warren picking a fight with the Billionaires. I have no problem with her tax proposals on the uber rich but singling them out to run a negative add is crass IMO. She is riling up voters at the expense of actual human beings so of who have no issue with higher taxes. She is taking a chapter from the Trump playbook divide and conquer and I am willing to bet she loses a lot of momentum because of it. Most voters are just tired of the rhetoric and I am one of them. She is getting some bad advice from her young progressive cadre, doubling down on the evil rich is not the way to go. She is misreading the voting populace. I thought she was more even keeled than this, she is turning into Bernie 20/20. IMO.
I think you may be right unless it is targeted. I think that type of targeted approach might work in places like the Rust Belt where they feel like they are exploited by big business and the special interests of the wealthy.
Once she made the message personal about particular people she went of track IMO. Nobody should begrudge anybody for making money unless there are specific unethical reasons to that person.
I haven't seen or read about the ads, but I would agree in general. Class warfare isn't needed. Just simply state the rich are getting richer while everyone else is stuck or moving back. We need them to contribute their share to society. And it benefits them as well. blah blah blah
