Post by claudiajean on Oct 17, 2019 17:40:30 GMT -5
I feel with Warren that if she goes moderate at health care at this point, she loses. She’s been too outspoken about it. And if she continues to dance around how it’ll be funded, she’ll lose. IMO, she needs to come up with her best plan, unveil it, and be prepared to defend it.
I feel with Warren that if she goes moderate at health care at this point, she loses. She’s been too outspoken about it. And if she continues to dance around how it’ll be funded, she’ll lose. IMO, she needs to come up with her best plan, unveil it, and be prepared to defend it.
She’s painting herself into an unwinable corner. And so is Bernie. But he’s not our frontrunner so I’m picking just on her.
And Uncle Joe... I get why he’s popular with the demographic he is, but it’s 2019 and we just can’t.
What? And the alternative is Trump. Maybe you can't, but I can.
ETA: Also, Supreme Court. Ginsburg is getting new cancers found more frequently. She almost certainly will not survive another administration. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I think Warren is wonderful. I think that in a hypothetical better world, she'd run the best White House imaginable, and as a consumer lawyer, I could not have dreamed up a better candidate for my own personal interests.
I also think she's running a campaign that is for a different time and a different race.
*If* we win this election, not only will Trump refuse to leave, but we need to be prepared for the likelihood that he'll incite a wave of white nationalist violence that will sweep the country while the GOP turns a blind eye and fills the airwaves with conspiracy theories about illegal votes and illegitimate president. We're not just electing a president, we are electing a general to fight this.
Not to mention, this violence and conspiracy theories will take place against the backdrop of a stock market that will fall when Warren gets in. (Now I don't for one hot minute think that we should not not vote for Warren because she'll cause the markets to freak out over fear of regulation, but we need to accept that that's what *will* happen.)
I haven't seen anything from Warren to suggest she understands that this is the reality that will be waiting for her in January 2021, much less that she's ready to deal with that. She couldn't even say Twitter needs to eject Trump while Harris stood there begging her to.
I will be very excited to vote for her if she's the nomination. She's without a doubt my clear favorite by a mile over Biden, Bernie, and every other white candidate, and the only one of the frontrunners who should be still in this race. But I think people are making a mistake by comparing and voting on hypothetical policies instead of who is best equipped to handle the most likely significant challenges the candidates will actually be facing once elected.
And Uncle Joe... I get why he’s popular with the demographic he is, but it’s 2019 and we just can’t.
What? And the alternative is Trump. Maybe you can't, but I can.
ETA: Also, Supreme Court. Ginsburg is getting new cancers found more frequently. She almost certainly will not survive another administration. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Where did Kershnic say she wouldn't vote at all if Biden is the nominee....?
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Oct 18, 2019 5:17:45 GMT -5
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Oct 18, 2019 5:23:13 GMT -5
Follow up question: if you are someone who claims to truly prefer your own plan over a single payer system, have you NEEDED your insurance for a major health event? Do you know that if you needed chemo or major surgery that it wouldn’t ultimately screw you, or do you like it now just because you haven’t had a major illness so you don’t feel you’re paying too much? Additionally, without a single-payer plan, do you think there’s a better way to cap what the cost of healthcare is? Because costs continue to skyrocket and with the way healthcare is structured now, nothing is being done to stop them. I think if the govt was required to cover everyone, they’d start regulating how much things cost, and then you wouldn’t see, say, $40 for a fucking band-aid just because a hospital can.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
FWIW, my BIL is a hospital administrator and his take is that Americans will not settle for the type of care the will be available in a M4A scenario. Granted he works in a palace of a hospital in midtown Manhattan where every room is private and bigger than my first apartment. But his contention is that such a hospital couldn't exist in an M4A system because it wouldn't be financially solvent.
Now, I don't think most Americans expect that kind of experience when they go to the hospital. But he's spent a lot of time in hospitals in England as well and he says that they are far different from US standards, including some that still have wards without rooms at all. I don't know if this is true as the only non-US hospitals I've been to were in France and Egypt. But I do see his point, especially with certain specialties, that we've become accustomed to private rooms and a certain level of hotel-like hospitality for in-patient stays. Hell, my mom's hospital has an entire department of hospitality staff led by a former high-level Hilton Hotels director.
I'm not sure that this is what the majority of Americans are thinking about when they're saying they don't support M4A (more likely it's just "I work for my benefits and I don't want to subsidize lazy/undocumented/whatever people") But it's an interesting point and something that probably would need to be addressed.
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
FWIW, my BIL is a hospital administrator and his take is that Americans will not settle for the type of care the will be available in a M4A scenario. Granted he works in a palace of a hospital in midtown Manhattan where every room is private and bigger than my first apartment. But his contention is that such a hospital couldn't exist in an M4A system because it wouldn't be financially solvent.
Now, I don't think most Americans expect that kind of experience when they go to the hospital. But he's spent a lot of time in hospitals in England as well and he says that they are far different from US standards, including some that still have wards without rooms at all. I don't know if this is true as the only non-US hospitals I've been to were in France and Egypt. But I do see his point, especially with certain specialties, that we've become accustomed to private rooms and a certain level of hotel-like hospitality for in-patient stays. Hell, my mom's hospital has an entire department of hospitality staff led by a former high-level Hilton Hotels director.
I'm not sure that this is what the majority of Americans are thinking about when they're saying they don't support M4A (more likely it's just "I work for my benefits and I don't want to subsidize lazy/undocumented/whatever people") But it's an interesting point and something that probably would need to be addressed.
To jump on this, I think a huge difference is wait times for specialists. @@when my daughter was a baby, she had torticollis and we were able to get her in PT the same week our pediatrician diagnosed it and I remember some friends in Canada were facing the same issue and had to wait months. I have a herniated disc and when the pain flares up I can go in to the physiatrist that week to discuss an injection and have that done within the month. With a national healthcare I believe that kind of thing could take months.
That said, I know these kind of things can be done because I live in NYC and there is a whole department of physiatrists a mile from my home and that for half of the country people would have to drive hours to even get to a physiatrist and it would probably take a month or more to get an appointment so I know my experience isn’t the norm. But M4A isn’t going to fix that problem and will make that a reality for more people, not less.
And I’m not saying let’s not do it because I have it good. If I have to wait months to see a specialist for people to not go bankrupt because they have cancer, I’m good with that. But a lot of the country is not going to put others first in their thinking and be totally fine with their standard of care going down.
And as @seeyoulater has pointed out, I don’t think people will want the federal government deciding what is or isn’t covered. And no one is asking the M4A candidates about that so I don’t know what their plan is. Will IVF and abortions and other women’s reproductive health be covered no matter who is running the government? HIV medications? I just don’t trust our government not to use healthcare coverage against minorities.
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
FWIW, my BIL is a hospital administrator and his take is that Americans will not settle for the type of care the will be available in a M4A scenario. Granted he works in a palace of a hospital in midtown Manhattan where every room is private and bigger than my first apartment. But his contention is that such a hospital couldn't exist in an M4A system because it wouldn't be financially solvent.
Now, I don't think most Americans expect that kind of experience when they go to the hospital. But he's spent a lot of time in hospitals in England as well and he says that they are far different from US standards, including some that still have wards without rooms at all. I don't know if this is true as the only non-US hospitals I've been to were in France and Egypt. But I do see his point, especially with certain specialties, that we've become accustomed to private rooms and a certain level of hotel-like hospitality for in-patient stays. Hell, my mom's hospital has an entire department of hospitality staff led by a former high-level Hilton Hotels director.
I'm not sure that this is what the majority of Americans are thinking about when they're saying they don't support M4A (more likely it's just "I work for my benefits and I don't want to subsidize lazy/undocumented/whatever people") But it's an interesting point and something that probably would need to be addressed.
^^this is what happens when you tie reimbursement to patient satisfaction. Patients don’t give two shits about the care they receive but we’re implementing spa services to ensure they’re filling out a 9 or a 10 on their damn press-ganey survey.
We joke that the survey should be one question: “but did ya die?” but instead there are questions of the satisfaction of the good temperature
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
I want to specify that the only parts of MFA that I see as the problem in the general are (a) eliminating private insurance and (2) raising taxes. Which is why seeyalater52 said that in polling everyone loves “MFA” but no one loves “eliminate private insurance.”
Why it’s a problem has been detailed quite a bit already: - it’s a huge reshaping of American healthcare and intimate aspects of people’s lives with scant details. - giving Govt control of your health. Do you want Eric Trump all over your health when he becomes president in 10 years? - some people like their health insurance - so much damage has been done to our nation. Is remaking the healthcare system really the first and potentially only thing we want our next president to do? - I don’t care what Bernie people say, America is not as progressive or forward thinking as he thinks we are. Evidence: the current hellfire we are in thanks to the GOP and their voters.
Based on: I don’t know. Reading a bunch of shit and watching two decades of American elections. 🤷♀️
FWIW, my BIL is a hospital administrator and his take is that Americans will not settle for the type of care the will be available in a M4A scenario. Granted he works in a palace of a hospital in midtown Manhattan where every room is private and bigger than my first apartment. But his contention is that such a hospital couldn't exist in an M4A system because it wouldn't be financially solvent.
Now, I don't think most Americans expect that kind of experience when they go to the hospital. But he's spent a lot of time in hospitals in England as well and he says that they are far different from US standards, including some that still have wards without rooms at all. I don't know if this is true as the only non-US hospitals I've been to were in France and Egypt. But I do see his point, especially with certain specialties, that we've become accustomed to private rooms and a certain level of hotel-like hospitality for in-patient stays. Hell, my mom's hospital has an entire department of hospitality staff led by a former high-level Hilton Hotels director.
I'm not sure that this is what the majority of Americans are thinking about when they're saying they don't support M4A (more likely it's just "I work for my benefits and I don't want to subsidize lazy/undocumented/whatever people") But it's an interesting point and something that probably would need to be addressed.
To jump on this, I think a huge difference is wait times for specialists. @@when my daughter was a baby, she had torticollis and we were able to get her in PT the same week our pediatrician diagnosed it and I remember some friends in Canada were facing the same issue and had to wait months. I have a herniated disc and when the pain flares up I can go in to the physiatrist that week to discuss an injection and have that done within the month. With a national healthcare I believe that kind of thing could take months.
That said, I know these kind of things can be done because I live in NYC and there is a whole department of physiatrists a mile from my home and that for half of the country people would have to drive hours to even get to a physiatrist and it would probably take a month or more to get an appointment so I know my experience isn’t the norm. But M4A isn’t going to fix that problem and will make that a reality for more people, not less.
And I’m not saying let’s not do it because I have it good. If I have to wait months to see a specialist for people to not go bankrupt because they have cancer, I’m good with that. But a lot of the country is not going to put others first in their thinking and be totally fine with their standard of care going down.
And as @seeyoulater has pointed out, I don’t think people will want the federal government deciding what is or isn’t covered. And no one is asking the M4A candidates about that so I don’t know what their plan is. Will IVF and abortions and other women’s reproductive health be covered no matter who is running the government? HIV medications? I just don’t trust our government not to use healthcare coverage against minorities.
People in this country seem to think we don’t have long wait times like Canada but it’s not true.@@@ In my city it’s a 6 month wait time just to get into the dermatologist to determine if a spot on my kids head is cancer or nothing.
Post by mrsukyankee on Oct 18, 2019 8:17:32 GMT -5
I'll speak up as a Brit/using the NHS. Waiting times aren't horrifying for the big thing - cancer, etc. Some stuff there are waits. And yes, the hospitals are very different in the NHS. BUT..you can go privately. You can have private health insurance. And then you can go to the pretty, more modern hospitals. The care under the NHS is as good as it gets, though the gov't has made it as tough for them as they can with funding and not having enough GPS/nurses. I think the majority of Americans would deal. And the rich ones wouldn't see anything change - they'd still go to the fabulous fancy hospitals.
Follow up question: if you are someone who claims to truly prefer your own plan over a single payer system, have you NEEDED your insurance for a major health event? Do you know that if you needed chemo or major surgery that it wouldn’t ultimately screw you, or do you like it now just because you haven’t had a major illness so you don’t feel you’re paying too much? Additionally, without a single-payer plan, do you think there’s a better way to cap what the cost of healthcare is? Because costs continue to skyrocket and with the way healthcare is structured now, nothing is being done to stop them. I think if the govt was required to cover everyone, they’d start regulating how much things cost, and then you wouldn’t see, say, $40 for a fucking band-aid just because a hospital can.
I'm 100% in favor of a single payer system. I just KNOW that the current M4A proposal won't cover what my private insurance covers because, again, I used $78k of health care in 2018 that would not be covered under M4A but was under my NJ-based employer insurance plan. I'm in favor of a system that would actually 100% cover everything for everyone, and also, ideally, a way to extract ourselves from the private system that wouldn't ruin lives by making millions of people unemployed/unemployable, which is why Kamala Harris has the right idea with a gradual downshift.
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
I want to specify that the only parts of MFA that I see as the problem in the general are (a) eliminating private insurance and (2) raising taxes. Which is why seeyalater52 said that in polling everyone loves “MFA” but no one loves “eliminate private insurance.”
Why it’s a problem has been detailed quite a bit already: - it’s a huge reshaping of American healthcare and intimate aspects of people’s lives with scant details. - giving Govt control of your health. Do you want Eric Trump all over your health when he becomes president in 10 years? - some people like their health insurance - so much damage has been done to our nation. Is remaking the healthcare system really the first and potentially only thing we want our next president to do? - I don’t care what Bernie people say, America is not as progressive or forward thinking as he thinks we are. Evidence: the current hellfire we are in thanks to the GOP and their voters.
Based on: I don’t know. Reading a bunch of shit and watching two decades of American elections. 🤷♀️
Yeah. It’s not about the cost or the principle of the idea. It falls apart for me when I think about the practical reality of implementing and administering it.
What Bernie proposes - no deductibles, copays, no private insurance of any kind etc is not even what Medicare is now, nor is how other single payer countries work.
The reality is that it’s not going to work as advertised. I mean, are second opinions covered? What about third opinions? Plastic surgery after serious health conditions? Substance abuse treatment? If someone has a sleep disorder that they prefer to be treated with more expensive therapy and not cheaper meds, will the government pay for whatever the person chooses, including both forms of treatment? What if I lose my glasses, who pays for the replacement pair? And that’s to say nothing of @@@ things like birth control, fertility treatments, abortion, etc.
Health insurance administration is a multi million dollar industry that requires tens of thousands of workers. Even if you streamline things with M4A, it will still require an enormous workforce to administer. The government simply isn’t going to hire 50,000 new workers, that’s just not how Washington works. Instead, it’s going to outsource nearly all those jobs to the same insurance companies that are making decisions today.
Except under this sort of system, these insurance companies can’t be sued by state attorney generals, and consumer remedies will be even more limited. Not to mention, they won’t need to provide good enough service to keep their large employer customers happy and from selecting a different provider. So I expect quality of service to decrease not increase.
When the ACA was created, does anyone know why we didn’t do a Medicare if you want it formula? Is it due to what ESF, outlined above?
I have been curious about this for awhile because it seems the simplest plan. But I know things that appear simple don’t always end up being that way.
It is my understanding couldn't get the votes for that model.
Yes and I believe it was because of blue dog democrats maybe? It was basically adding a public option if I remember correctly where you could buy in. It’s hard to remember what normal political process looked like 10y ago.
I forgot how annoying Joe Lieberman was. He used to enrage me on the regular.
Le sigh. I miss when being obstinate about expanding healthcare choices was a thing that could occupy my anger for weeks. Now instead I'm flattened/horrified/disgusted/furious about, like, actual legitimate evil.
Ugh, now I am sort of annoyed I asked lol. It is bringing back memories of that time. When we were too spoiled to understand the problems that were ahead of us.
I am thinking of my 60 year old dad and how buy into Medicare would be his best option. My mom until her death carried their health insurance as he is a farmer. He has been on her cobra coverage but that will end this summer. So he has to find private insurance as a 60 year old man with 5 trillion pre-existing conditions. It just seems like such a simple option to allow people to just buy in. And doesn’t require a huge overhaul.
Yes I love my insurance. Yes I’ve had to use it. Out of a 250K bill, I only paid a fraction. For my peace of mind, (really my mental health) I was able to change doctors, change hospitals, and ask for additional extras to my care. All of which had to be specialized to my case. I’m absolutely sure none of that would have been possible with government healthcare.
I believe in basic healthcare for everyone. There is no reason we can’t give that right to every person in this country. I also believe that people want options and the freedom to use those options. that shouldn’t be taken away.
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
Based on what people I know are saying
Also, I have been waiting for Buttigieg or someone else to point out that in a MFA world, our healthcare will become politicized every 4 years. If the GOP takes office, our contraception, reproductive health, etc. will be on the line, among other things that have been pointed out. I get that healthcare is already politicized but the private market can do what it wants.
And yes, we have had major medical issues in our family. And no, i don't super love my health insurance company or anything.
Do the MFA plans address rural healthcare and attracting more people to study medicine or go to underserved areas or specialities by way of student loan deferments, grants or forgiveness?
And Uncle Joe... I get why he’s popular with the demographic he is, but it’s 2019 and we just can’t.
What? And the alternative is Trump. Maybe you can't, but I can.
ETA: Also, Supreme Court. Ginsburg is getting new cancers found more frequently. She almost certainly will not survive another administration. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Maybe I wasn't clear, I will vote for (and donate and canvas) whoever the nominee is. But Joe Biden is a crappy nominee for 2019.
I have a question for people who DON’T think Americans would go for a Medicare for all type of plan - is that based on your interactions with people or is it based on what politicians are saying or what? I think healthcare is trending in the same way that gun reform is, and in the same way gay marriage was before SCOTUS made it legal, which is that most Americans believe it’s necessary, but we are being fed a different narrative from those at the top, and that the opposition is small but louder. But maybe my experience is wrong?
FWIW, my BIL is a hospital administrator and his take is that Americans will not settle for the type of care the will be available in a M4A scenario. Granted he works in a palace of a hospital in midtown Manhattan where every room is private and bigger than my first apartment. But his contention is that such a hospital couldn't exist in an M4A system because it wouldn't be financially solvent.
Now, I don't think most Americans expect that kind of experience when they go to the hospital. But he's spent a lot of time in hospitals in England as well and he says that they are far different from US standards, including some that still have wards without rooms at all. I don't know if this is true as the only non-US hospitals I've been to were in France and Egypt. But I do see his point, especially with certain specialties, that we've become accustomed to private rooms and a certain level of hotel-like hospitality for in-patient stays. Hell, my mom's hospital has an entire department of hospitality staff led by a former high-level Hilton Hotels director.
I'm not sure that this is what the majority of Americans are thinking about when they're saying they don't support M4A (more likely it's just "I work for my benefits and I don't want to subsidize lazy/undocumented/whatever people") But it's an interesting point and something that probably would need to be addressed.
@@
This is an interesting sentiment, being that Manhattan is the one place I've found (from internet research of mostly middle and upper middle class women who spend too much time on the internet ) where American women tolerate sharing a hospital room post-giving-birth. This was unacceptable for me, so I changed doctors to deliver in New Jersey.
But also, as others have followed up... there is a wide disparity in quality of medical care in this country, from both a health (did you live? wait 6 weeks to find out if you have cancer?) and comfort (enjoy the temperature?) perspective. When I first moved to upstate NY my kid needed to see a dermatologist.... we had a several month wait to be seen locally. I ended up deciding my kid could wait, but I did seriously consider driving her back to NYC where I could make a same day appointment at any of a number of decently reviewed dermatologists. We have NY state employee insurance that is widely accepted locally so it's not an insurance issue... just a local supply/demand issue. And I don't live in a tiny town!
The reality is that it’s basically impossible to improve access to healthcare for the country as a whole without sacrificing some of the conveniences and perks those who benefit from the system now have. You have to change the mindset of the voters to more group and less individual focused, and that is the tough sell.
People have to see what is in it for them... so you have to convince the voters that we all do better when we are a healthier, better cared for population.
I support Warren in the primary, but I feel like she and Bernie might simply be doing the work toward normalizing this attitude. Progress moves achingly slow. If either of them could get anything actually done on M4A, I would be completely surprised.
The reality is that it’s basically impossible to improve access to healthcare for the country as a whole without sacrificing some of the conveniences and perks those who benefit from the system now have. You have to change the mindset of the voters to more group and less individual focused, and that is the tough sell.
People have to see what is in it for them... so you have to convince the voters that we all do better when we are a healthier, better cared for population.
That first sentence is just patently false. Not to mention un-creative. The M4A crowd has set this up as a zero sum game in which the only progressive and collectivist choice is their specific proposal. That thinking is both untrue and dangerous. I even see it in this thread: the labeling of those who don’t support M4A as moderate, or insinuations like yours above that those who would personally lose some really big stuff are being selfish and don’t care about the greater good. As long as we keep making health care reform about the fact that some people have to lose so others can benefit we will never make the needed changes to the system. That scarcity mindset is dangerous and it pits working people and low income people against one another for the good of the wealthiest. We can ALL get what we need under a reformed system, and that system does NOT have to be Medicare for All.
The reality is that it’s basically impossible to improve access to healthcare for the country as a whole without sacrificing some of the conveniences and perks those who benefit from the system now have. You have to change the mindset of the voters to more group and less individual focused, and that is the tough sell.
People have to see what is in it for them... so you have to convince the voters that we all do better when we are a healthier, better cared for population.
I support Warren in the primary, but I feel like she and Bernie might simply be doing the work toward normalizing this attitude. Progress moves achingly slow. If either of them could get anything actually done on M4A, I would be completely surprised.
to add on to what seeyoulater said, your statements seem to imply that people who have insurance coverage are all upper class and wealthy, when the reality is that they and their family members may also have serious medical conditions, they may be middle class, and they are terrified about what an overhaul in the system would mean for their conditions re: wait times, etc.
I don't believe any plan has addressed how to recruit and retain talented physicians, OBs and other medical professionals. We already have a doctor shortage and that will be a huge issue if a MFA plan is adopted.
The reality is that it’s basically impossible to improve access to healthcare for the country as a whole without sacrificing some of the conveniences and perks those who benefit from the system now have. You have to change the mindset of the voters to more group and less individual focused, and that is the tough sell.
People have to see what is in it for them... so you have to convince the voters that we all do better when we are a healthier, better cared for population.
I support Warren in the primary, but I feel like she and Bernie might simply be doing the work toward normalizing this attitude. Progress moves achingly slow. If either of them could get anything actually done on M4A, I would be completely surprised.
I don't believe any plan has addressed how to recruit and retain talented physicians, OBs and other medical professionals. We already have a doctor shortage and that will be a huge issue if a MFA plan is adopted.
They haven't. And there are like 15 different versions of "Medicare for all" bills and virtually none of them address the challenges associated with the pipeline of medical providers and cost of med school and additional training for those providers.
seeyalater52 I have a (possible dumb) question. If they went with M4all, would it supposedly work like the present Medicare? My H has had to sign up for Medicare (yes, we're old), and there are all these add on's to consider. Part B, D, F, maybe G, Medicare advantage. It seems if we pay enough extra, we can get coverage similar to what we have now? Do you think that would be some kind of option for those who don't want to lose the benefits they have?
FWIW, I love the insurance that our company provides (and pays 100% for), and don't really want to switch either. I think we all agree that something has to be done, but it's going to be hard. I love hearing your input as someone who is so much more "in the know" than me.
Most of the proposals (there are a lot of them, so it's not just one plan) would turn Medicare into something that looks a lot more like Medicaid - a basic plan that includes a core package of benefits (more comprehensive than Medicare currently offers), except it would be nation-wide, whereas Medicaid benefit packages are currently set by states. Most of the proposals don't completely ban the concept of supplementary insurance so in theory yes, people could purchase additional plans, or employers could offer them, but whether they would be available or employers would choose to do so, or whether those plans would actually serve people is TBD (for example, would they be affordable, would they have exclusions based on pre-ex, would plans be available that actually offer the things that aren't included in the core benefit package like reproductive health care?) I for one am not selfish enough not to want to pay into the pot for people who don't have options under the current system to have better ones - but I also don't feel confident that even if I could afford it, that what I need would be offered in a supplemental plan, and it certainly won't be part of a core benefit package.