This is the math that most people don’t have the emotional capacity to hang onto or understand, particularly when it goes up against political faith-based beliefs like “if the government is involved, it’s going to be worse”; the person who figures out how to make this concept stick is the person who leads us out of the quagmire.
70% of voters in Colorado are. Many who voted no on Proposition 69 didn’t want to pay an extra $1000 in taxes to save $4000 in out-of-pocket medical/insurance premium costs.
Bingo. That’s what I’m saying- nobody’s really making a point out of that math, assuming it exists and is favorable.
People see a combination of a government run program, potentially higher costs, and less choice / freedom w.r.t. their healthcare, and get skeptical.
I suspect a lot of older people envision something more akin to the DMV or jury duty than what we have now- some sort of large, impersonal government clinic where you go in, wait in some massive, shabby waiting room with a bunch of grungy people (who’ll probably give you some disease), and then get a cursory visit with an overworked government doctor who happens to be on duty that day. Then they’ll tell you that you need treatment/surgery X, but the wait time is 2 years for that. Or that you have some condition that they don’t treat (due to death panels), and that you’re doomed.
Not that any of the above is actually true or even expected to be true, but that’s kind of the worst possible outcome for government-run healthcare that a lot of people envision (“socialized medicine”).
Personally, I think the part that is conveniently overlooked and yet critical, is that we’re currently in the midst of a doctor and nurse shortage, yet we’re considering policies that will decrease the amount that they’re paid, as well as likely increase their workload. That doesn’t sound like a recipe for success in the long term.
You’re saying people would be upset if they don’t get to decide for themselves what medical treatments are actually effective? Are you one of those people?
If we didn’t have a public education system today, your comments in this and similar threads confirm my suspicion that conservatives today would fight tooth and nail to make sure that not every child gets a high school education, because is “costs too much.”
Heck yes. That’s why drug companies advertise on TV instead of just in doctor’s brochures - they want patients to ask for that specific medicine.
Regards,
Shodan
So your current insurance allows you to fully decide on treatment and medications?
Why would patients listen to a commercial on TV instead of their own doctor?
Unfortunately in my experience what Shodan states is true relative to public education. It is available to everyone at reasonable cost.
The side effect is that high school graduates do not have a high school education.
I’ve had the same dentist since I was 14. I have spent a lifetime building up a relationship with him.
He is in his 70’s now, how kindly should I take it when he retires?
Eh, it seems clear to me she is saying the stupid one, and I’ve got no agenda against her.
It’s not about defending her, it’s about where one spends their energy and time. Whataboutism? Sure, whatever, it’s a valid point that they’re hypocritical to go after her who has done nothing yet and ignore the folks with real power who are saying far worse, and trying to implement it, out of political expediency.
Half of this argument seems to be based on the idea that no insurance companies don’t already place limits on which doctors you can visit and which drugs you are covered for. That ain’t true. Also, you can switch doctors in many universal coverage jurisdictions.
Or to not get your kids vaccinated because you believe in something contrary to science? The choice to be dumb is a choice, but it has consequences, and not just for the dumb.
I don’t know about you, but I would ather spend a few hours in line at the DMV than at the hospital. You know, a large, impersonal corporate clinic where you go in, wait in some massive, shabby waiting room with a bunch of grungy people (who’ll probably give you some disease), and then get a cursory visit with an overworked private doctor who happens to be on duty that day. Then they’ll tell you that you need treatment/surgery X, but the wait time on getting approval from your insurance 2 years for that. Or that you have some condition that they don’t cover, and that you’re doomed.
that is the current outcome from out privatized care.
I know that Shodan keeps insisting that nurses and other providers would be paid less, but I have not seen any reliable source that backs his claim.
Sure, insurance adjusters and executives will be paid less, as well as executives at insurance companies, maybe even their secretaries. Is keeping an obsolete and harmful industry profitable worth the trillions extra we spend for lessor outcomes?
It’s only viewed as a “reasonable cost” because we are already paying it. If there were no public education system today, and someone came up with a proposal to have states pay very large portions of their budgets on schools, I’m convinced conservatives would flip their lid and talk about Second Amendment remedies.
If there were a national health care system established tomorrow, I have little doubt that in a generation or so, conservatives won’t really be fighting it – just as they stay away from eliminating Medicare.
As I’ve said numerous times, not everyone rolling their eyes at some of AOC’s comments are Trump supporters so going on about him is not pointing out hypocrisy.
No, it doesn’t.
I’m sure you meant some kind of a point by the question, but I am doggoned if I can see it.
Regards,
Shodan
My point is that you wouldn’t be giving something up if your socialist medical insurance chose the best drugs for you. I didn’t think I was being mysterious.
In fact, I’m quite baffled by your confusion. Paraphrasing, you said “under a public system they may not prescribe expensive and/or unproven drugs”. I ask “doesn’t that happen already?” and you answer “Yes but what’s your point?”.
Medicare generally pays less than private insurance, but they fork over in a consistent way. Medical professionals charge big money because insurance companies sometimes reject claims for unpredictable reasons or drag the remittance process out. If doctors get less but get it in a timely and reliable manner, they might find that preferable to leaning on the team specialist who spends 10 hours a day working on rewriting reports to fit what a given insurer will want to see, fighting the adjusters to at last get the payout and coördinating the kickbacks that keep the system functioning.
Sometimes less is more.