in a round about way, ur conceding that ur wrong in characterizing Warren's policy as communist for the education of 1981: Healthcare in Singapore is supervised by the Ministry of Health of the Singapore Government. It largely consists of a government-run universal healthcare system with a significant private healthcare sector. ... Bloomberg ranked Singapore's healthcare system the most efficient in the world in 2014.
She's been pretty consistent her whole career and has a long list of accomplishments that have protected consumers.
I won't waste any time trying to debunk or show examples of how wrong he is. Hard head makes soft ass...
The UK has a better health care system than we do. I refuse to believe Americans aren't capable of doing what these countries with superior health care are doing.
I agree that Trump is a complete douche and unscrupulous and definitely has a narcissistic personality disorder. Just like every other politician. Its in all their species and anyone that thinks otherwise is deluded by baby kissing politician liars. Except maybe Jimmy Carter.
$200 billion is $0.2 trillion, so she's saying they would basically pay the same as before, except to government instead of to private insurers. Okay. So people with union contracts would still have private insurance? And, is the idea that unionized companies can avoid double-paying for healthcare by instead paying out-of-market wages? How does that justify making the company pay twice? Don't understand that one. What about the insurance companies for unionized shops? Larger point, the competitive market is constantly spurring these private insurers to find better ways to evaluate and price risk, to find the most efficient way to hedge their risk, and howto minimize the cost of administering it all. You can stop redundancy by scrapping them, but you also remove the incentive to improve. I'd expect two effects: (1) the monopsony (many healthcare sellers, only one buyer) would put downward pressure on prices (which is good) which discourages providers from spending anything on quality, service, customer satisfaction, or innovation (which is bad); and (2) with no benchmark for efficiency, administration costs will go up and efficacy will go down. For @Andre0087: this is some narrow communism (public ownership of the means of production in this narrow segment of healthcare insurance), and it will, imo, have some uneconomic effects. okay. Wait, companies were paying about the same as they used to be to provide insurance. And you're still scrounging for more money to pay for this plan? And more money? I think it's a tactical mistake to say 3% and then, when you need a little more to make your math work, just pull the lever again. I favor a wealth tax. But, if you look like you're just going to rob from the rich every time you want a new program, there's going to be problems. A wealth tax should exist only for its own sake, not as a piggy bank. More money? And what is this immigration reform? And, how are you going to overhaul healthcare AND do immigration reform in the same presidency -- the two toughest issues in politics -- with a divided Congress no less? What is that, even? And, weren't we talking annual numbers earlier? I like Warren. I even like her desire to proactively reduce wealth disparity and improve social justice. But, her methods just drive me crazy. So Big Government it's hard to take.
"This is how Warren loses." some of you might be interested in this. https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-warren-loses/
in other words, a nearly $9 trillion tax Biden is already making this argument: https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/1...zabeth-warrens-plan-to-fund-medicare-for-all/ Joe Biden’s presidential campaign is slamming Democratic rival Elizabeth Warren’s plan to pay for “Medicare for All” — accusing the Massachusetts senator of misleading voters on its costs. Warren released her proposal to fund the government-run health care system Friday morning, saying she would do so “without raising taxes one penny on middle class families” — attempting to answer a the question of how she’d pay for Medicare for All that’s dogged her for months on the campaign trail and in debates. Biden Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield was quick to hit back at Warren’s plan, saying, “For months, Elizabeth Warren has refused to say if her health care plan would raise taxes on the middle class, and now we know why: because it does. Senator Warren would place a new tax of nearly $9 trillion that will fall on American workers.” Warren is doomed.
Warren would do well to scale back her program. I wish we would go back to ACA and build on that. Here in Texas you are required to carry auto liability, we need the same thing for healthcare liability.
Warren doesn't blink an eye when questioned about one economist's estimate that her medicare-for-all plan will result in the loss of two million jobs:
Hardly. Nobody is excited and chomping at the bit to vote for Biden. Even those that want him to win the primary aren't super excited to vote for him. That will hurt turn out and could cost the election. Warren's plan is placing the tax, not on the worker but the employers.
Warren believes what she believes. I give her points, and most Dems will for sticking to her principles. That being said, the big issue will continue to be LOW INFORMATION VOTERS who simply do not understand how our government works, and do not understand how laws work. Obama basically ran on and wanted single payer healthcare, and ended up with the ACA when his program went through the legislative process. The fact is M4A will never happen. Warren in running on her PRINCIPLES. A President doesn't get elected and then snap their fingers to create and pass any law they want to. If LOW INFORMATION VOTERS could be easily communicated to that Warren's M4A program is the north star starting point in a negotiation that will likely see in the end ACA 2.0 with 10 million more people added on a Public Option with slight increase in taxes on the wealthy.... I think most voters would be all about this. But no.... Americans.... just simply don't do their homework & live in a world of perpetual ignorance. Which is the main deficiency that someone like Warren has as a candidate for president.
this is NOT my area, so I'd be curious what you think of the following analysis: https://theweek.com/articles/874751/what-democrats-are-really-debating-about-medicareforall What Democrats are really debating about Medicare-for-all Noah Millman November 1, 2019 The Democrats have been spending an extraordinary amount of time debating what to do about America's health-care system. This is partly a reflection of political reality; health care was the main policy rallying cry that led the Democrats to victory in the 2018 midterms, and Democratic-leaning voters regularly say that health care is their top policy priority. But that same political reality is skewing the health-care debate away from the central policy choices and toward an artificial dispute of less real substance than it appears. The main debate we are having is over whether America can afford Medicare-for-all. Such a single-payer system would move the overwhelming bulk of health-care spending over to the government's side of the national ledger, and this spending would have to be paid for with an increase in taxes. (Yes, in theory any increase in spending could be financed through debt, but debt is just a tax on future earnings; you can't avoid debating how to structure the health-care system by changing the subject to whether we should be running a higher fiscal deficit.) Opponents look at the overall price tag, blanch, and argue that a more incremental change — like a public option — would be more affordable. But the problem with Medicare-for-all is not that it's unaffordable. Indeed, a main argument for Medicare-for-all is that it is more affordable than our current health-care system, as well as being more equitable. Americans pay approximately 8 percent of our health-care dollar on administrative costs, a large percentage of which could be eliminated with only a single entity to bill. Americans also pay much higher drug prices as well as higher prices for procedures than other countries where the government plays a bigger role in setting prices. Indeed, international comparisons suggest that the fiscally leanest health-care systems are those where the government plays the largest role in allocating aggregate spending on it. Moreover, most Americans currently pay for health care in a very regressive way. Employers pay premiums per employee, which means that employees are effectively paying for their insurance via a capitation tax, one of the most regressive modes of taxation. It gets even worse when you consider that the tax exemption for benefits is more valuable for higher-paid employees. And those who don't receive benefits from their employers — including many in marginal employment situations — must purchase on the individual market, without the leverage to negotiate lower premiums that large employers have. Even relatively regressive broad-based consumption taxes like the value-added tax would be more progressive than the system we have. The risk with Medicare-for-all lies not in the overall cost but in the uncertainty around the substantial restructuring it would impose on the health-care industry. Billing administrators at hospitals and insurers are largely a dead weight cost to the economy, but laying them off will still cause short-term economic pain. More seriously, many hospitals and physician practices have business models structured around billing rates that are substantially above Medicare levels. Democratic presidential candidate and former Maryland Rep. John Delaney's claim that "every hospital" would close if they were reimbursed at Medicare rates is a wild exaggeration, but transitioning to a Medicare-for-all environment could still be wrenching, and the government would likely have to spend substantial funds to smooth that transition. Changes this large are very difficult to game out in terms of both the aggregate cost and who will ultimately come out ahead — and that risk is far more salient for those with a stake in the existing system than it is for those on the outside peering in. Then there's the financing side. Advocates of Medicare-for-all frequently argue that it would amount to a tax cut for the vast majority of Americans because an increase in their take-home pay would more than offset the increase in taxes. But this assumes that employers would pay each employee in cash precisely the value that they previously receive in the form of premiums paid. But is this what would happen? As noted, the after-tax value of cash compensation is different from the value of tax-exempt benefits, and also varies by employee. Many large employers also contribute a portion of premiums at least for some employees, while employees pay another portion. Would those employers contribute that subsidy to take-home pay after Medicare-for-all? Employees currently receiving benefits would reasonably expect a rise in take-home pay under Medicare-for-all, but the amount is going to be a function of their market power and not just the savings to the employer from no longer having to pay premiums. Would an incremental approach avoid this uncertainty? Only to the extent that it avoids that restructuring — and it can avoid that restructuring only to the extent that it fails to achieve universal coverage or allows costs to skyrocket. If a public option was relatively stingy in terms of the care offered, or was inadequately subsidized for lower-income individuals, then relatively few people would take advantage of it. But if it was heavily subsidized and provided fairly generous coverage, then it would quickly attract many individuals with substantial health-care needs — and businesses would have a powerful incentive to cut their own health-care costs by gutting the insurance they provide their employees, driving further migration to the government plan. In the end, the government would likely wind up taking as large a role in restructuring the health-care system as it would under a single payer system. Meanwhile, because it would require individuals to opt in, a public option would almost surely have to be financed by some kind of per-capita tax, albeit with a subsidy for those with low incomes. This would replicate the regressive nature of America's existing health-care financing system. And if the premiums were set artificially low, then once again you'd see a rapid collapse to a Medicare-for-all scenario for most Americans. The core question in the Medicare-for-all debate is not whether we can afford a single-payer system. It's how much money we're willing to spend to avoid making big structural changes that will cause real pain to numerous stakeholders in the system as it exists.
The article reeks of cowardice. The article concedes that it is more affordable but then worries about the restructuring of our system. Before any bill passes there will be a structure included. It will have bumps and mistakes initially. The legislators will tweak it until we have something that can actually work. There will be growing pains and problems, no doubt. But that isn't a reason to run away from it. Besides as has been pointed out, the proposed plan will not be the final plan just like it was changed with ACA. That wasn't the proposed plan. What I do trust is that Warren will fight for as much improvement as possible and push us closer to where I believe we need to be.
Do the benefits outweigh the risks for a single payer system? In my opinion yes it does...I have a union job and will not benefit from it but I'm willing to vote Democrat in this election if it can help other Americans...is it always just about the money?
No, no. Corporations pay $9 trillion now for their share of employee's healthcare in their compensation packages. They'll write the same check, but to the feds. The employee is also in the same position, getting $X in salary plus Y healthcare (the latter just from a different benefactor). But, it does sound like she wants to squeeze a few more trillions out of the wealthy. Caveat: many companies currently do not offer health insurance to employees, but will be taxed in this scheme. Those companies now have more expenses and need to extract that value from somewhere. Increasing prices might be an option. But, taking it from employees by reducing salaries seems more likely. No idea how many people that would affect. In some ways that's cleaner anyway because there is a more clear price signal in the job market when you take this complexifying element out of the compensation package. In another way, it prevents consumers from assigning their own value to healthcare coverage (if everyone was in the ACA market, you could have the best of both worlds).
