Elizabeth Warren rolls out "transition" version of "Medicare for All" (1 Viewer)

[The Dude]

I don't know what to think about her healthcare plan yet. I tend to lean toward a more centrist approach that I find to be reasonably practical like Mayor Pete's. However paragraph 3 of the first article caught my eye. If I were a democrat a comprehensive plan to fight corruption would influence me to an extent.

"The Massachusetts senator's plan says that the first bill Warren would pass is a "comprehensive set of anti-corruption reforms which include ending lobbying as we know it and knocking back the influence of Big Pharma and insurance companies."

Elizabeth Warren rolls out "transition" version of "Medicare for All"

Warren said the transition to full Medicare for All would take three years

www.cbsnews.com

Below is another article regarding Warren's plans.

Warren details how she'd transition country to 'Medicare for All'

Warren’s plan answers rivals who say already hard-pressed families can’t wait for a sweeping overhaul to experience relief from health costs.

www.politico.com

 

[N.O.Bronco]

There are a lot of ways to skin the cat that is universal healthcare, and while I haven't had enough time spent on Warren's evolving plan, so I'll reserve specific judgement until a future post, the underlying principles are and continue to be sound. Single-payer, private delivery, paid for by a set of progressively structured means based system of taxation and distribution...Though I think I will have some skepticism about at least one of those mechanisms.

The problem is and has always been the political barrier in the middle of actualizing the theoretical. And I think there is a solid critique from the pragmatist wing that what Bernie and Warren are pushing is unlikely to be passable in the current form. However, I think there are also incredibly valid critiques on the left that these already compromised positions that often concede first principles to bad-faith Republican talking points, like Pete or Biden's disingenuous complaints about keeping employer insurance as is, or raising taxes, ultimately poison the well of not only more holistic reform, but jumble the narratives of their own compromised reforms to the point of deeply crippling their own chances at passing their legislation. Since, when you work through their policies, they are ultimately in violation of the spirit of their critiques as well and by taking that position so fervently back themselves into rhetorical corners they can't get out of and can't get the moderates that they need on their side out of either.

Pete's plan, taken to his own logical endpoint, will raise taxes, likely more on the middle class than Warren's, and it will not allow people to keep their employer insurance unless systematically propped up like the ACA and thus will have far greater long-term costs. But politics and implementation being what they are, Bernie or Pete, I suspect the final legislation to be closer to Pete's legislation than Warren's/Bernie's.

 

[JimEverett]

Seems a reasonable plan on lobbying - although I think the tax should kick in at something higher than $500,000. You don't want to hurt smaller, underfunded (relatively) groups.

 

[The moose]

"The Massachusetts senator's plan says that the first bill Warren would pass is a "comprehensive set of anti-corruption reforms which include ending lobbying as we know it and knocking back the influence of Big Pharma and insurance companies."


That is the key to getting this under control.

Realistically if my taxes go up the same amount as my insurance costs I don't care one bit.

If I don't have to fight to get stuff covered like I do now and I don't have the staggering deductible it is a win.

Heck I would be happy to just get the commercials off of my TV making meds cost more.

My God I hate seeing a commercial for blind people's meds on my TV. I have only met a handful of blind people in my life yet they run visual adds for the blind? Who is it for?

 

[barbar]

"The Massachusetts senator's plan says that the first bill Warren would pass is a "comprehensive set of anti-corruption reforms which include ending lobbying as we know it and knocking back the influence of Big Pharma and insurance companies."


That is the key to getting this under control.

Realistically if my taxes go up the same amount as my insurance costs I don't care one bit.

If I don't have to fight to get stuff covered like I do now and I don't have the staggering deductible it is a win.

Heck I would be happy to just get the commercials off of my TV making meds cost more.

My God I hate seeing a commercial for blind people's meds on my TV. I have only met a handful of blind people in my life yet they run visual adds for the blind? Who is it for?

This is what people don't seem to understand about socialized medicine. Yes, I pay higher taxes to have my health care covered. But the increase in taxes is WAY less than what I was paying in the private system for my overall health costs in the USA. Now when I go to the doctor I pay nothing extra. No deductibles, no co-pays, no co-insurance. No high bills for specialists or blood testing. I need an MRI, then I get it. I need bloodwork, i get it. End of story. I don't think about cost....ever. Therefore the medical care is much more thorough. They will check for EVERYTHING that could be causing the issue instead of one test at a time, coming back month after month and paying out the arse.

In the last 2 years I have had cancer, taken a ride to the ER in an ambulance, had a 5 day hospital stay, surgery, diabetes treatment....and I have paid zero. just my tax contribution covers 100 percent. in the states I would have filed bankruptcy already. It's the main reason I will never move back to the USA...unless we fix health care.

 

[Taurus]

The Dem candidates really need to simplify and repeat their core message on healthcare.
First, that the Republicans have had a decade to come up with something and have utterly failed to do so. There will be no help on the subject from the GOP. Dems need to keep hammering at that. The Reps did nothing because they don't care. Your health simply isn't important to them.
Second, amplify the reduction in hassle and confusion. Sure you may like your doctor, but he has to employ a full set of staff just to perform billing and to fight with your insurance company to get paid. And when that fails, guess what? The whole bill falls on you. With universal care, you show your card, you get help, period. No weird bills for thousands of dollars because the anesthesiologist happened to not be in your Preferred Provider list, so her work isn't covered at all. No time lost or stress while you're sick trying to get your insurer to pay up while your insurance company has all the time in the world to stonewall you.
Lastly, universal coverage encourages the production of cures as opposed to treatments. Since it's not a moneymaking scheme, coming up with something that flat-out cures a disease is by far the more attractive goal.

 

[barbar]

The Dem candidates really need to simplify and repeat their core message on healthcare.
First, that the Republicans have had a decade to come up with something and have utterly failed to do so. There will be no help on the subject from the GOP. Dems need to keep hammering at that. The Reps did nothing because they don't care. Your health simply isn't important to them.
Second, amplify the reduction in hassle and confusion. Sure you may like your doctor, but he has to employ a full set of staff just to perform billing and to fight with your insurance company to get paid. And when that fails, guess what? The whole bill falls on you. With universal care, you show your card, you get help, period. No weird bills for thousands of dollars because the anesthesiologist happened to not be in your Preferred Provider list, so her work isn't covered at all. No time lost or stress while you're sick trying to get your insurer to pay up while your insurance company has all the time in the world to stonewall you.
Lastly, universal coverage encourages the production of cures as opposed to treatments. Since it's not a moneymaking scheme, coming up with something that flat-out cures a disease is by far the more attractive goal.

great points all around. What I understand about the system where I live is that Doctors are only paid by the insurance for each patient they see one time per quarter. So if you have to keep coming back in the same quarter they have to keep treating you for free. So it really encourages them to be thorough. No one wants to work for free so it's a good motivator.

Meanwhile back home I have literally had doctors tell me they can only treat one complaint per visit. If I have 2 or 3 complaints I need to make 2 or 3 appointments. This allows them to keep billing me over and over while never getting a complete picture and diagnosing the underlying condition which is causing all the symptoms I am complaining about.

My wife's father hasn't been able to breathe for over 2 years and they still have zero idea what's wrong with him. He has to wait months between different tests while he just deteriorates down to nothing. It's maddening. That should never happen.


My main thought is that the private system has had decades to figure this out. DECADES. And they have just made it worse. It's time for a major change. People should not stand for this but a lot of the country is convinced that the USA has the best health care system in the world.

 

[The moose]

This is what people don't seem to understand about socialized medicine. Yes, I pay higher taxes to have my health care covered. But the increase in taxes is WAY less than what I was paying in the private system for my overall health costs in the USA. Now when I go to the doctor I pay nothing extra. No deductibles, no co-pays, no co-insurance. No high bills for specialists or blood testing. I need an MRI, then I get it. I need bloodwork, i get it. End of story. I don't think about cost....ever. Therefore the medical care is much more thorough. They will check for EVERYTHING that could be causing the issue instead of one test at a time, coming back month after month and paying out the arse.

In the last 2 years I have had cancer, taken a ride to the ER in an ambulance, had a 5 day hospital stay, surgery, diabetes treatment....and I have paid zero. just my tax contribution covers 100 percent. in the states I would have filed bankruptcy already. It's the main reason I will never move back to the USA...unless we fix health care.

Hey we're are you by the way?

For the life of me I can't see how people like their insurance.

Realistically I would have to damn near cut my arm off to get them to pay for anything without a major fight.

It is not if it is when something happens I will be ruined.

 

[barbar]

Hey we're are you by the way?

For the life of me I can't see how people like their insurance.

Realistically I would have to damn near cut my arm off to get them to pay for anything without a major fight.

It is not if it is when something happens I will be ruined.

I live in Germany.

I am also going to Engineering school....for free(in English btw). I know, socialist hellscape right?

Seriously, ask me if I care about paying a few extra percent in taxes after I graduate.

On a happier note I just have 2 courses left for my bachelors. I am almost done. I am so ready to have a paycheck again. I want to get a fancy Framus guitar I need some cash haha.

I was right there with you a few years ago. Paycheck to paycheck with not much in savings in case something ever did happen.

 

[Dragon]

Lastly, universal coverage encourages the production of cures as opposed to treatments. Since it's not a moneymaking scheme, coming up with something that flat-out cures a disease is by far the more attractive goal.

Not to mention preventive care and catching things early on.

Once a year I get called in for a breast cancer check. Every woman over the age of 40 get that and it is free. Last year they found something and within a week I had a complete checkup, the lump was removed and tested. Luckily it wasn't cancer but something that may have become cancerous over time.

I'm now on a 6 month checkup timetable and all of it was completely free and did not cost me anything. I was even offered free psychiatric counseling to help deal with the fact that I'm going to have frequent cancer checkups for the remainder of my life,

If it had not been free and if we did not have that free screening program, it is very likely that the maligned cells would have turned cancerous before being discovered wich would have been harder and way more expensive to treat and also far more life threatening.

 

[Ayo]

I lived under the US system for the first 30 years of my life and under the Canadian system for the last dozen. Moving to Canada, it was such an adjustment with how healthcare was handled, and it seemed so bizarre. But now, going back to the US and looking at that system, it strikes me as even odder.

The US does some things incredibly well. But the notions around the healthcare we get here are interesting. A lot of strange questions in weird assumptions about the system up here. I've been nothing but pleased, though.

We've had three kids and different procedures across all of us. One daughter needed a surgery a couple of years ago and we had an amazing surgeon who took exceptional care of her. My wife had a very, very rare disorder after her first pregnancy and delivery - it's often mis-diagnosed in the States, actually. They figure a 1 in 80,000 birth incidence, but it's so often mis-diagnosed, it's hard to get numbers.

The OB-GYN didn't know what exactly it was, so referred her to a top dermatological specialist and we were the first customers they saw on Monday morning when his office opened. Diagnosed immediately.

I had a colon issue crop up and I was getting a scan within the week.

I realize all of these are anecdotal, but they are demonstrative of the satisfaction the vast majority of Canadians have with the system here. And there is no real traction to do away with it.

My wife works with a very poor child who has a rare, terminal condition. He receives care from Toronto's Sick Kids Hospital - one of the top pediatric hospitals in the world. He doesn't have to pay a thing. And I realize that there are poor people in the US who have some coverage through Medicaid.

My own family members struggle. One sister has a good job, with what's considered decent coverage, but her prescriptions are still considerable. My youngest sister has had to skip routine medical care and has to avoid procedures because she had no healthcare plan as a part time worker and was too old for coverage under my parents' plan. So, she would just stay sick.

"Get a better job" is typically the response.

I think that's messed up because it also allows for this weird value judgment back and forth, about how someone is 'less deserving' of routine medical care because of the job they have or maybe don't have. So it becomes less about the care a person needs and more about that person as a human being.

It's long overdue to uncouple healthcare and insurance.

We have a great healthcare plan at work, but it's for things like physical therapy, dental (which a lot of people are moving to universalize care for now), massages, vision, etc.

Not for routine care, not for surgeries and tests.

There are obviously flaws and shortcomings, but I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes to receive the care we have but also paying into a system that also ensures that everyone has coverage, too.

 

[Ayo]

First, that the Republicans have had a decade to come up with something and have utterly failed to do so. There will be no help on the subject from the GOP. Dems need to keep hammering at that. The Reps did nothing because they don't care. Your health simply isn't important to them.

It's clear that the GOP have had no desire to actually do anything with healthcare. But the issue has a ton of utility for them in the election season and something to hammer the Democrats and Obama on.

I think that allowed them to be lazy as congressional members for years and years. They didn't have to come up with a plan - there was no moment they *actually* had to come up with something. There was no incentive to do it (I mean, other than their job as elected officials looking out for the welfare of their constituents, of course). It was super easy and convenient. Demonize the existing plan and vow to repeal it but with no replacement.

And then the nomination of Trump seemed to offer no reason, either. They were on the verge of controlling the executive and legislative, and still had no answer. I think because they didn't expect Trump to win. They figured they'd let Hillary get into the White House and they could continue to hammer away on the ACA and keep doing what they'd been doing the last few years. Exploit the wedge issue, but for perception intent only. Hang that healthcare albatross around Hillary's neck and continue to curry favor with voters despite having no idea, no vision, no intent.

Except, Trump won. And while they had so much control, there was nothing they had to pass. Nothing to propose. "Repeal and replace" was an illusive farce and it became clear that they'd spent years grousing about healthcare with absolutely zero intentions of passing anything that would actually improve the healthcare system.

They had that decade and offered nothing, because it was never about proposing anything or improving anything. It was ride the wedge issue into campaign wins and stir up the voting bloc with healthcare scares.

Congressional negligence for hundreds of dozens of millions of folks.

I hope healthcare is a huge issue in the 2020 election - it's critical. And the GOP could, right now, be working on devising something. Trump could be leading the charge for it. Instead, we get a string of empty promises. To the collective detriment of Americas' health.

 

[Terrence]

The GOP believes in the survival of the fittest - financial fittest. If you have money, then you can afford healthcare and other joys of life. It is up to you to get that great in shape finances. Every person for themselves!

Survival of the fittest, the thought comes from evolution but the GOP does not believe in that; except around religion and science where it is not evolution it is creation.