Medicare For All?

[Doc Brown]

Maybe you could just give us the top 3?

Fine. As if you don't already know though.

 

1.) Having a robust military that is dominant to the rest of the world is the easiest way to maintain peace among the more developed nations. If you ever attack a member of NATO, you will be disposed of immediately. Those nations then won't feel the pressure of building up their military making a World War less likely. Our country came out of WWII in being relatively intact and we've used that to our advantage to create arguably the most peaceful period in human history.

 

2.) You want to have a military strong enough where when we have to overthrow dictators of smaller countries there is an absolute assurance of victory on our part and all the fighting will be done over there (this requires a military presence throughout the world which is costly). You then weigh the costs/benefits of whether and how to engage in such an attack. Plus, you want to make sure your military is massive enough two nations wouldn't dare to team up and go to war against you or your allies. You also need a big enough military to make sure you can fight two wars simultaneously so nobody will take advantage of us while we're at war with another country.

 

3.) Obviously, you need to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons so if any country is dumb enough to shoot nukes at us or our allies are toast. It was part of Reagan's brilliance in boosting our weapons development in the 80's that helped put an end to the Cold War.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Doc Brown

[grinreaper]

Fine. As if you don't already know though.

 

1.) Having a robust military that is dominant to the rest of the world is the easiest way to maintain peace among the more developed nations. If you ever attack a member of NATO, you will be disposed of immediately. Those nations then won't feel the pressure of building up their military making a World War less likely. Our country came out of WWII in being relatively intact and we've used that to our advantage to create arguably the most peaceful period in human history.

 

2.) You want to have a military strong enough where when we have to overthrow dictators of smaller countries there is an absolute assurance of victory on our part and all the fighting will be done over there (this requires a military presence throughout the world which is costly). You then weigh the costs/benefits of whether and how to engage in such an attack. Plus, you want to make sure your military is massive enough two nations wouldn't dare to team up and go to war against you or your allies. You also need a big enough military to make sure you can fight two wars simultaneously so nobody will take advantage of us while we're at war with another country.

 

3.) Obviously, you need to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons so if any country is dumb enough to shoot nukes at us or our allies are toast. It was part of Reagan's brilliance in boosting our weapons development in the 80's that helped put an end to the Cold War.

Are you sure you are a liberal?

[Doc Brown]

Are you sure you are a liberal?

I don't find other people's views particularly interesting so I feel guilty even sharing my views, but since you asked....

 

I usually vote democrat because the issues I care most about are more in line with the Democrats. I'm a strong believer in worker unions (specifically mine), taxing the rich slightly more than the middle class (I like today's rate) to invest that money in entitlements for the poorest among us to help them get the boots to help them pick themselves up by their bootstraps (if that makes sense), and I still think the ACA can work with some tweaks as all start up projects need tweaks. I believe healthcare is a right and not a privilege, but don't think socialized medicine is a good idea just looking at the VA. Let's just say the ACA has helped some people very close to me that gave me a greater appreciation of it.

 

I do lean right when it comes to national security (strong military, strong border defense, extreme vetting of immigrants), some social issues (pro life, pro death penalty, against normalizing transgenders), have no problems with guns as my interpretation of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from becoming 1935 Germany and if you think that wouldn't ever happen you haven't studied history. I am in favor of banning them from the mentally ill though. Also, I am well aware of the danger of islam. I've always been split on business taxes and environmental regulations as I can see both sides of the argument and don't know which is right. Let's just say if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nominee, I'm voting either 3rd party or Republican.

 

No offense to true liberals or conservatives, but I've always found it odd that these people are so ideological that they agree with every single thing their side stands for. One thing that is concerning is this country has become too politically correct. George Carlin warned us about this a long time ago. Watch any fricken late night show nowadays and you'll see that in full display.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Doc Brown

[Dr.Sack]

Doc Brown, I'm curious your thoughts on trade and banking. In particular the role of financial institutions in our economy being that they compromise 30% of our GDP by most estimates. Also monopolies. Where are you on them? Teddy Roosevelt 'trust buster' or 'free market' extraordinare. Last Bail Outs. Where do you stand on this issue. Suppose we incur another financial collapse. Do you believe in the B word?

Edited August 11, 2017 by Dr.Sack

[TakeYouToTasker]

Doc Brown, I'm curious your thoughts on trade and banking. In particular the role of financial institutions in our economy being that they compromise 30% of our GDP by most estimates. Also monopolies. Where are you on them? Teddy Roosevelt 'trust buster' or 'free market' extraordinare. Last Bail Outs. Where do you stand on this issue. Suppose we incur another financial collapse. Do you believe in the B word?

What role do you think our financial institutions play in our economy? What role do you think they should play? What role do you think industry regulation plays in creating barriers to market entry? What impacts do you think barriers to market entry have on creating pseudo-monopolies? What do you think happens to an economy when it's financial sector fails? What impacts do you think perverse incentives ushered by legislation have on financial markets? What is the responsibility of consumers?

[DC Tom]

Doc Brown, I'm curious your thoughts on trade and banking. In particular the role of financial institutions in our economy being that they compromise 30% of our GDP by most estimates. Also monopolies. Where are you on them? Teddy Roosevelt 'trust buster' or 'free market' extraordinare. Last Bail Outs. Where do you stand on this issue. Suppose we incur another financial collapse. Do you believe in the B word?

 

Again, demonstrating you're a !@#$ing idiot.

[row_33]

Thanks Doc, wish I had more time to banter with you on here...

[4merper4mer]

OMFG. When you have lost the debate. You sound like Lil Marco. You gotta do better than that if you want to stay on the debate stage with the big boys Lil Marco. At least whip out a Venezuela or Zimbabwe reference like Lyin Ted would.

OMFG

[grinreaper]

Medicare and private insurance acceptance are virtually the same. Moving to a universal system, would mean that all payments would come from the Medicare system. In most countries private for profit hospitals do not exist. The system is designed to serve the people, not enrich healthcare administrators and bureaucrats.

 

The more important point is lowering costs. Medicare would negotiate prices directly and as the single insurer would end the grotesque price inflation in our healthcare system. Also right now Medicare is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. That would come to an end. The key is lowering costs and covering everyone.

So, all we have to do is regulate what doctors, hospitals and pharm charge and voila, the problem is solved?

[DC Tom]

So, all we have to do is regulate what doctors, hospitals and pharm charge and voila, the problem is solved?

 

But it's not socialized medicine, it's "single payer."

[TakeYouToTasker]

Maybe you could just give us the top 3?

I'll give you the only reason you need:

 

The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect the lives, property, laws, and culture of the individuals who form it.

 

All the comforts you enjoy today, relative to the rest of the world, are because of this.

 

The world is not a nice place. It is a dangerous place comprised of billions of bad actors and opportunists (WARNING: Trumpism) and some, I assume, are good people. But you don't need to worry about the good people. You need to worry about the bad actors. The US is safe, relative to much of the rest of the world, because these bad actors have such a damn difficult time doing us harm.

 

Think about it: in 2001, we suffered the worst domestic attack on our nation in 60 years (Pearl Harbor). The attack managed to knock down 3 buildings, and damage one other building. In response we conquered an entire nation, imposed on it a new form of government, and set our selves up to occupy it militarily for decades. We did this in about a month and one half.

 

Think about that for a second.

 

Disregard your position on the case for going to war with Iraq, and examine the abstract: a nation decides it has to go to war.

 

How many lives are saved by our ability to make war as we did? There was no beach head at Normandy. There was no meat grinder. The daily lives of the citizens of our country didn't change one bit while we conquered one of the largest militaries in the world in less than two months.

 

That's why it's important.

[row_33]

 

But it's not socialized medicine, it's "single payer."

 

you want single payer plus the ability to buy private insurance if you so desire.

[4merper4mer]

I'll give you the only reason you need:

 

The entire purpose of the nation state is to protect the lives, property, laws, and culture of the individuals who form it.

 

All the comforts you enjoy today, relative to the rest of the world, are because of this.

 

The world is not a nice place. It is a dangerous place comprised of billions of bad actors and opportunists (WARNING: Trumpism) and some, I assume, are good people. But you don't need to worry about the good people. You need to worry about the bad actors. The US is safe, relative to much of the rest of the world, because these bad actors have such a damn difficult time doing us harm.

 

Think about it: in 2001, we suffered the worst domestic attack on our nation in 60 years (Pearl Harbor). The attack managed to knock down 3 buildings, and damage one other building. In response we conquered an entire nation, imposed on it a new form of government, and set our selves up to occupy it militarily for decades. We did this in about a month and one half.

 

Think about that for a second.

 

Disregard your position on the case for going to war with Iraq, and examine the abstract: a nation decides it has to go to war.

 

How many lives are saved by our ability to make war as we did? There was no beach head at Normandy. There was no meat grinder. The daily lives of the citizens of our country didn't change one bit while we conquered one of the largest militaries in the world in less than two months.

 

That's why it's important.

Whatever dude. Are you aware that pills cost less in Canada?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Whatever dude. Are you aware that pills cost less in Canada?

 

[Dorkington]

Ideally I support a universal system of some sort, BUT, with all the profit grabbing hands in the pot of American politics, I fully admit that it would not work here.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Dorkington

[row_33]

Ideally I support a universal system of some sort, BUT, with all the profit grabbing hands in the pot of American politics, I fully admit that it would not work here.

 

you want an emergency health plan that assists in paying for $100,000+ price tags.

 

nobody sees that as being important at the top of the political parties.

[Dorkington]

I think two basic things are good starts... 'free'/easy access to preventative care (aka cut down on emergency room visits, hopefully), and like you said, something to cover the big stuff, because no one should be going bankrupt because they happened to be unlucky enough to get cancer or something.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Dorkington

[Azalin]

Ideally I support a universal system of some sort, BUT, with all the profit grabbing hands in the pot of American politics, I fully admit that it would not work here.

 

I understand your point, but can't help but bristle at your use of the word "profit". Profits are earned - they're what's left after you've paid all your expenses while conducting legitimate business. Equating the politicians' penchant for grabbing cash in back-room deals with legitimate earnings only reinforces the leftist lie that profits are evil.

[row_33]

Not sure I agree that health services is a profit-driven industry, at least with a "greed is good" motto.

[Dr.Sack]

So, all we have to do is regulate what doctors, hospitals and pharm charge and voila, the problem is solved?

We negotiate fair prices and invest in the next generation of healthcare, in terms of education and R&D.

 

The American system has costs that other single-payer nations don't have. Hospitals & doctor offices here have 4x the billing staff due to complex insurance coding. Insurance companies operate on a 20-30% overhead (profit), this money doesn't go into care. Medicare's overhead is in the single digits.

 

So there are cost savings due to the government being able to negotiate prices with Pharma & directly with hospitals & physicians. It works in Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea & the U.K..

 

Another reason costs come down is the risk pool expands to the entire country. If we had one insurance company and mandated everyone pay into it, and that insurer had monopoly control of the market it would work in a similar way in terms of price negotiation with doctors and Pharma. I'm not advocating for a single-payer / private for profit insurer system just saying in theory it would function similar in terms of price discovery.

 

As far as expanding our national investment into healthcare I think we should do that. Make healthcare a much bigger priority. Make public college free including up to doctorate level. Dramatically invest in the next generation of doctors and nurses, and biologists. That leads to the next generation of doctors and innovation.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I always get a good chuckle any time I hear/read a liberal making an impassioned argument about the merits of a true market monopoly.

Edited August 11, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[unbillievable]

We negotiate fair prices and invest in the next generation of healthcare, in terms of education and R&D.

 

You immediately lose the debate with the use of "fair". No human is capable of determining this figure. Everything afterwards is built on this BS word. You might as well have said we're going to use unicorns to distribute the medicine.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Trump's stealth healthcare plan, "Medicare for All."

 

From January of this year:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/01/20/trumps-stealth-health-plan-could-be-medicare-for-all/

[4merper4mer]

We negotiate fair prices and invest in the next generation of healthcare, in terms of education and R&D.

The American system has costs that other single-payer nations don't have. Hospitals & doctor offices here have 4x the billing staff due to complex insurance coding. Insurance companies operate on a 20-30% overhead (profit), this money doesn't go into care. Medicare's overhead is in the single digits.

So there are cost savings due to the government being able to negotiate prices with Pharma & directly with hospitals & physicians. It works in Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, South Korea & the U.K..

Another reason costs come down is the risk pool expands to the entire country. If we had one insurance company and mandated everyone pay into it, and that insurer had monopoly control of the market it would work in a similar way in terms of price negotiation with doctors and Pharma. I'm not advocating for a single-payer / private for profit insurer system just saying in theory it would function similar in terms of price discovery.

As far as expanding our national investment into healthcare I think we should do that. Make healthcare a much bigger priority. Make public college free including up to doctorate level. Dramatically invest in the next generation of doctors and nurses, and biologists. That leads to the next generation of doctors and innovation.

OMFG

[B-Man]

http://www.macleans.ca/society/should-doctors-be-paid-a-premium-for-assisted-deaths/

 

From the Maclean’s article:

 

All in, a MAID [medical assistance in dying, e.g., lethal injection] provider can claim a maximum of $440. That would be a hefty paycheque for a couple hours’ work if that was indeed all the time it took to assess a patient and administer the fatal dose. In reality, it takes much longer…

 

The amount of time it all takes varies wildly from patient to patient, says Daws, but most providers say it takes a minimum of three and a half hours. In that time, a family doctor could earn double the MAID rate by doing routine office work, and many specialists could earn triple that amount at their day job.

 

 

So.................even “passionate” euthanasia-supporting doctors are refusing to kill patients because they are not paid enough.

 

It’s not sustainable,” says Daws, who describes herself as a “hard-core, passionate-to-the-bone” assisted-dying advocate.

 

Last week alone, she turned down three patients who wanted the service because she couldn’t afford to do it. “It’s not for lack of wanting,” she says, “but it’s financial suicide.”

 

 

 

The article points out that euthanasia saves a lot of money for the country’s single-payer system–which should be a warning but isn’t once euthanasia consciousness takes hold:

 

According to the Canadian Medical Association, assisted dying could cut health care costs by at least $34.7 million and up to $138.8 million a year in Canada.

[Dr.Sack]

Oh lookie here, employer healthcare costs expected to rise 5% next year.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/12/news/economy/health-care-workers/index.html