I caught that, too, but further down the article says:
My bold.
The people who write the headlines don’t write the articles. Sometimes I think that the people who write the headlines don’t even READ the articles… :dubious:
At best, the headline is misleading, as 56% is hardly a flaming, screaming, newsworthy majority. Of course, it DID make us read, and that’s the goal. :dubious:
In light of polling and interim elections since '16, the continuing confidence of Trump voters and the lack of it from non-Trump voters is astonishing to me. And I’m guilty of it, too. It’s so important to beat Alpha Don next year, and it was so disillusioning to me that he won in the first place, that I can’t bring myself to believe that the country is principled enough and energetic enough to get off its collective butts and vote the man out of office.
If it’s Trump against Warren or Sanders, Trump is going to win. Just wait until all those blue-collar union workers with gold-plated health care plans, along with all the liberal professors, teachers, nurses, and other professionals with great health care plans discover that Warren is going to invalidate their contracts, make their health insurance illegal, and force them all into the brave new system of ‘medicare for all’ with the rest of the rabble. Congress, of course, will be exempt. After all, she’d need their votes.
Warren is already dropping in the polls due to this stupidity, and the average voter isn’t really paying attention yet. Bernie’s ideas are even more politically destructive to the Democrats.
If the Democrats don’t get those two lunatics off the top of the ticket, Trump will win again, and probably by a bigger margin than last time.
Yes, what kind of fool would put the welfare of all Americans ahead of their own person I-got-mine situation? We should instead vote for someone who will lower taxes on the middle class and otherwise perpetuate the status quo, which is working out just great.
Did Warren explicitly rule out all ‘private’ health care? Just because there’s ‘medicare for all’ doesn’t mean people have to avail themselves of it. Wouldn’t they still be free to look for, and pay for, 'gold-plated health care"? In fact, by doing so, they’d lighten the load on the public system.
I am not sure if Ms. Warren’s plan includes forbidding doctors from treating private patients. And maybe eliminating private health insurance doesn’t include eliminating supplemental or complementary coverage. Would breast augmentations or rhinoplasty be covered under M4A? I don’t know.
Anyone who currently has gold-plated health care through their union or university… wouldn’t they simply negotiate for a gold-plated supplemental plan? They could end up with even better coverage.
I believe Sanders’s plan is essentially gold-plated coverage for all. Single payer, no copay, totally free healthcare for all. Not sure this is possible, but it would make all private insurance superfluous.
Warren’s plan is, I think, Medicare-for-all which would still leave room for supplemental coverage, but I could be wrong there. She hasn’t been real clear when asked about private coverage in debates.
If you honestly think that a universal, federally managed single payer health care system will provide the same benefits to all as the major union-negotiated health care benefits and those that have been negotiated for by professionals, then you are delusional.
There are simply not enough hospitals, doctors and nurses to give everyone that level of care. And under Warren’s plan, which severely cuts reimbursement to hospitals and doctors, there will be even fewer resources available.
Her plan to simply pay drug companies 30% of what they get now will end drug research, and cause massive flight of drug companies and researchers out of the U.S. Her plan to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals to medicare rates will kill hospitals, because they rely on private payments to subsidize the medicare patients they currently serve. Take away the private payments, and there is no money left for capital costs since Medicare only reimburses variable costs.
Warren’s plan would destroy the health care system as you know it. So would Sanders’. Such sweeping reform to a huge part of the economy would also come with plenty of unintended consequences, and if history is any guide the cost estimates are rosy pie-im-the-sky estimates assuming that everything goes perfectly, supply continues as before, doctors keep working at 60% salary, he same number of people go to med school when their eventual salaries are capped at 60% of what doctors earn now, etc. None of these issues are addressed by any of the ‘Medicare for all’ advocates. It’s all blue skies and rainbows, so long as you turn over another huge chunk of the economy to the federal government.
Get ready for waiting lists and shortages. That’s how this always ends.
You are aware of other countries, right? And that the rest of the first world did manage to make this transition?
I don’t know how people can, in good conscience, enjoy decent health care at the expense of consigning fellow Americans to inferior care. That’s not right.
I AM aware of other countries, since I live in one My wife is currently on a 7-month waiting list for a specialist. We have made two trips to the US to get medical services we couldn’t get in a timely fashion here. My grandmother waited on a list for years for a knee replacement.
In a system that removes prices as a mechanism to control demand, he demand must be controlled in some other way. Rationing is just about the only tool the government has to do this.