Canada is a mixture of government provider and single payer. Hospitals are largely publicly run. There are some not-for-profit charity ones, and the occasional private one, but most hospitals now are government provided. Doctors are primarily single payer, as are clinics for medical tests.
OK, thanks for that clarification. Even under most universal coverage plans proposed in the US, I imagine we’ll still have some government run facilities in the VA and in the military.
I’m surprised you’re able to reply, given the mass death and destruction that I assume happens when you have such a socialist medical system. Congrats on surviving in that, I presume, desolate wasteland.
Yes, you are correct. Not only Medicare supplement plans could & would exist, but there no reason premium “cadillac” plans couldn’t also. Saying MFA means the end of all private insurance is wrong.
It descends how good M4A is. Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that governments can’t ban private insurance, but that doesn’t mean private insurance sprang up. How many people will pay insurance premiums to get premium coverage when they can get free coverage?
I don’t have a good answer but that was Sanders’ aides saying that in my cite. I presume that’s for hospitals that still offer both private and shared rooms but I’m just guessing.
If that’s only what they have , sure. But if it is a option you pay more for, like at many hospitals, then no, it wouldnt be covered.
And as I know both anecdotally (because my mother and sister are Canadian) and from reading on the subject, Canada has lengthy delays that would cause riots if they happened here.
Awesome strategy. Politics of subtraction rather than addition. Expelling apostates rather than seeking converts. :rolleyes:
They wouldn’t cause riots because the type of people who don’t lengthy delays now in the U.S. aren’t the type who riot. People get denied specific treatments all the time under the current system and have to fight for payment.
Lengthy delays for some procedures is a problem in Canada and that may be an inevitable result of a publicly funded health system. But it’s bullshit to pretend there isn’t lots of delays in the current American system except for the very rich. The next time your mom or sister complain, ask them how much they think it would cost them to buy their perfect no wait insurance in the U.S.
…rather than rely on anecdote, can you quantify what a “lengthy delay” would be, and compare that delay to someone in the United States who has no insurance and doesn’t qualify for any other assistance?
It’s irrelevant to say that it’s better to have coverage with delays than to have none at all. That is obviously true, but middle class Americans who already have health coverage will not stand for having even slightly worse coverage even if it is for the greater good. Is that morally bankrupt of them? Maybe so. But this is politics, and we have to go with what the voters will actually accept. The Elizabeth Warrens of the world obviously think we should just wag our fingers and hector them to be better, but this is incredibly stupid politics and will not get anything good accomplished for anyone.
Notice that there are plenty of countries with universal healthcare on that list. Let’s maybe emulate them, if it is politically feasible. But definitely not Canada. Not until they get their act together.
They don’t complain, at least not in the way you mean. They are NDP voters, true believers that their healthcare system is so superior, like everything else in the country they have adopted. I am the one side-eyeing it all as I hear about their difficulties time after time.
Meanwhile I have been consuming lots of long-deferred medical care in the past two years after a couple decades of being either uninsured or underinsured. Blue Cross/Blue Shield has taken great care of me.
We’re talking elections here. The majority of Americans have some form of health care. I bet a very large percentage of voters have health insurance. Covering the currently uninsured people is a slightly different conversation than how you’re going to change people’s current coverage.
I’ve heard every Canadian political stripe’s complaints, living here and all. I’m sure they said something about not spending the money correctly.
I too can enjoy a bunch of delayed dental work and eye exams with no waiting time thanks to my wife and my employment health benefits. Private insurance just isn’t allowed to pay for my overdue colonoscopy.
…going back to my original question: can you quantify how much " slightly worse coverage" actually is, quantify how and why Canadian coverage is objectively “slightly worse” than coverage in America, and why would universal care mean "slightly worse"coverage and not “slightly better” coverage?
Its not stupid at all. She’s simply telling it like it is. Her message has resonated with many dems and that is reflected by her polling.
From that survey:
“The 2016 Commonwealth Fund International Survey of 11 nations finds that adults in the United States are far more likely than those in other countries to go without needed care because of costs and to struggle to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthy food. U.S. adults are also more likely to report having poor health and emotional distress.”
https://international.commonwealthfund.org/data/2016/
It sounds like America actually has more than “slightly worse coverage” than Canada does, wouldn’t you agree? In fact it sounds worse than “slightly worse.”
LOL. Your cite said 74% of Canadians said they recieved excellent or very good healthcare from their regular doctor. It sounds like they do have their act together.
But as you know: I’m from New Zealand. So if you would prefer to follow the model we have here then you can if you like.
But it is superior isn’t it?
I don’t have to worry about insurance. I’ve spent days in hospital while they tried to fix me. I’ve been using a CPAP machine every night that was given to me two years ago by the local hospital. I’ve had monthly visits to the cardiologist the last two years. I didn’t pay a cent out of pocket for anything except perscriptions ($5.00 per item) and carparking. Do you really want competing anecdotes? Because I don’t think you would find a single person from countries with universal healthcare that would swap what they have for what you have in the United States.
But all of that is irrelevant of course.
You originally claimed that “no premiums, no deductibles, no copays even for prescriptions, any doctor, etc” would be unworkable fiscally. But countries with universal healthcare have all of those things. They are fiscally workable and we can do it cheaper than what the US is doing now.
BB, let me say at the outset that I am very skeptical that Bernie’s plan would work in the American context. And there are significant differences between what he is pushing for and what many other countries do. But I have debated that in GD threads before, and while I may do so again in the future, I’m not going to do it with you here. This is Elections and so this is not the place for that kind of policy debate. (Go search for my past posts on this topic and even respond to them if you’d like: I’m sure I’m still subscribed to those threads.)
What this is a place for, is a debate over the politics of it and how a Democrat can be most likely to beat Trump in the election that will be held in November 2020. So let’s proceed with that part of it.
There are a couple people in TNS who keep hitting me with this argument as well. It strikes me as a non sequitur, but all of you seem to think it is a valid argument for some reason.
Yes: Warren resonates with many Democrats. She has a legitimate chance to win the nomination. That is why I spend so much energy opposing her. If I didn’t think she had a good chance of winning the nomination, I would generally ignore her except for maybe laughing at her schoolmarmish wonkiness now and then.
But what makes her so dangerous is her potential to be a George McGovern type, who scratches all the spots that makes liberal Democrats feel good without having broad appeal to the middle of the electorate when general election season comes. (Which is not theoretical: DSeid and I have posted many cites about her weakness with swing voters in the primary thread.) Therefore, citing her increasing popularity with Democratic primary voters is not a refutation or rebuttal of my complaint about her. And her dogmatic insistence on abolishing private insurance, despite the unequivocal poll numbers that show this is an unpopular idea, is probably her most dangerous position—because it deals with something very important to voters’ lives, unlike decriminalizing illegal immigration or that sort of thing.
Okay. I really thought I had made this distinction clear in my comments about “the greater good.” I don’t know how much more clearly I can spell this out. But I will try.
First, let me fully admit at the outset that what I am about to say may well indicate that the median American voter is just not as good a person as the median voter in most other industrialized democracies. Certainly not when it comes to the issue of universal healthcare. But we have to try to win this election on the playing field we have, not the one other countries have or the one we wish we had.
So this putative median voter is not so great. She is a 60-year-old married white lady in the Milwaukee suburbs who voted for Bush at least once if not twice (for sure in 2004 even after Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, etc.) and she voted for Trump last time, or maybe just stayed home because she didn’t like either candidate. But she did vote for Obama twice, although her husband voted for Romney in 2012 after voting for Obama in 2008.
And she is definitely gettable for Democrats in 2020, but only if we don’t make her too nervous about the changes we are planning to make. Like me, she has a good Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan through her husband’s employer, and it has taken care of her and her family with no real problems.
She sees reporting on the news about people who still don’t have health insurance, and feels a little bit sorry for them. Just a little, like she feels for the charity cases her pastor talks about at church. She would like the government to provide at least a basic health plan for these people, although maybe not as good as the “Cadillac plan” her husband’s union negotiated for. After all, that was a tough negotiation—and why should her tax dollars pay for something just as good for people who don’t even belong to her husband’s union? That’s not fair, she thinks. She and her family have worked hard to get a little bit higher on the ladder than most people, and johnny-come-latelies shouldn’t just get to catch all the way up without working as hard (as far as she is concerned, regardless of how hard they actually work).
Or maybe she doesn’t even care at all if uninsured people get coverage, but she is tired of Trump’s uncouthness—and if a Democrat comes in and gives working poor people a basic health plan, she won’t kick up a fuss about it if that gets Trump off her TV screen.
Speaking of that TV screen: now she sees talking heads debating on TV the same way you and I are. The more moderate backers of candidates like Biden and Bullock say they want to leave everyone alone who has an employer based plan, and just offer a public option for those who don’t have good insurance. But the ones who take your position and back Warren treat it holistically, just like you are. They say that Americans collectively will be much better off with a universal single payer benefit. If there are slightly longer waiting times for some who had the best private plans before those were outlawed, that’s a pretty small sacrifice for the greater good of covering millions of Americans who now have nothing.
You just lost her. At least if Warren or Bernie is the nominee. She may not say it out loud because she knows it sounds bad, but in the privacy of the voting booth, she is going to vote to keep every scintilla of what she has. Even if that means sacrificing millions of other people to medical bankruptcy. Even if it will condemn many decent, hard-working people to an early death (though she will try not to think about that part too much). And even if it means suffering through Trump on TV for another four years.
As I say, maybe that makes her a really shitty person. But she’s not as shitty as the people who are definitely going to vote for Trump no matter what, and what really matters is that we can get her vote if we promise, cross our hearts and hope to die, not to mess with what she already has (even if in some ways we might end up breaking that promise later—shhh).
That’s what is at stake. We can still make sure everyone has some kind of health coverage, even if it is a patchwork system and not as efficient. Even if it preserves inequality in healthcare. It will still end medical bankruptcy and save lives. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good!
…I’m merely addressing the words that you said here. Are you now arguing that the words that you said were off topic?
TNS? The Next Step? Travailleurs Non Salariés? Transaction Network Services? The Naturist Society? Trust and Safety? Transparent Network Substrate? Team No Sleep?
LOL.
You live in a democracy. People are going to have different opinions on the best way forward for that democracy. There is nothing dangerous about Elizabeth Warren and there is nothing dangerous about the policy’s that she promotes. What is dangerous is white supremacy. Anti-black and anti-muslim hate. Those are the things that are really dangerous. Those are the thngs you should be fighting against and starting threads about.
Citing her increasing popularity was a direct refutation of the sentence I quoted.
It isn’t a “dangerous position.” Its a position you disgree with: thats all.
You spent a lot of words talking about a single voter. I understood your argument perfectly the first time. Your argument doesn’t make Medicare for All a dangerous policy though. If you oppose it then you better get better at arguing against it (than you have in this thread) because it isn’t going to go away. If the only reason to oppose Medicare for All is because you **might **lose a single voter then that isn’t a good reason to oppose it at all.
A single voter? :smack: Jesus fucking Christ. Srsly? 
She is a stand-in, an avatar, for a group of voters who have outsized power in 2020: suburban married churchgoing white women over 45 but not yet retired, in Wisconsin, the most pivotal of all battleground states—but she also stands in for similar women in other crucial Rust Belt battlegrounds like Michigan and Pennsylvania. Did you really not get that, or are you trying to whoosh me? FFS
Now imagine another putitive median voter. She is a 57 year old divorcee who finds Trump’s orange hue sexy and desperately wants to be the next Mrs. Trump. She collects cat figurines and voted for Reagan but never again, because he’s ineligible to be president for a 3rd term and he’s dead. She also loves MFA. Like, loves it. She literally writes love letters to Bernie Sanders every night telling him about her ideal future, married to Trump, huge collection of cat figurines, covered by MFA.
She’s a stand-in, an avater, for a group of voters who have outsized power in 2020. Shouldn’t we appeal to her?
See, I can make up stories too. Do you have any actual evidence that this person exists in large numbers, and that they feel the way you think they do about fairness in universal coverage?
One thing that Medicare-for-All (or even “MFA-light”) advocates could do to get more Americans to buy into their reforms is to point out that one of the biggest problems with private insurance is in dealing with private insurance companies once you file a major claim. I guarantee that in many cases, probably a majority, whenever there is a major claim, the insurance companies and providers are going to start a negotiations process in which they will claim you owe more than you think. It’s very possible that “covered” patients will get stuck with a tab for “out-of-network” services and “exclusions” and other fine print stipulations. This is one of the absolute worst things about our system: Americans don’t really know for sure what their insurance company will cover and they don’t know what their provider will charge them for. There is hardly any transparency in the process. A medicare-for-all scheme could solve this problem. They need to bring anecdotes and have ads in which these people who get screwed because they thought they were covered are featured prominently. That’s the way to sell it: people who have insurance need to understand they might not be insured after all. And in many cases, they’re not. They’re getting ripped off.
Having said that, I think that Medicare-for-all proponents really need to understand that the period of transition is going to be long and hard. One very real problem that none of the universal care advocates addressed in the debate was the potential for a surge in health system users. If more people assume they’re covered, more people will use the health system. That’s good in terms of growing the pool, but it also creates more demand for services and nothing can increase the supply of doctors and healthcare professionals, all of whom typically require years of highly expensive education in medical schools. I doubt it would happen, but let’s say for the sake of argument, Democrats win a landslide election and then use that mandate to just take a wrecking ball to the system and implement immediate M4A, I think it would quickly turn into an unmitigated disaster for that reason among many others. That’s why they should be selling this idea as a transformation that can take place in stages, with the idea that if political pressure somehow stymies that transition, Americans will still end up with better care than they have now. That’s why I think a more enhanced version of Obamacare is the way to go forward.
It’s not just a narrow segment of swing voters, either. From New York Magazine, no one’s idea of a right wing rag:
Below that colon is a graphic showing that MFA without further explanation polls at 56% favoring, 42% opposing. +14, not bad. But when the pollsters added “Would you favor or oppose a MFA plan if you heard it would do the following”, and offered various options, “eliminate private health insurance companies” is -21, 37% to 58%. Not good. And “lead to delays in some people getting certain medical tests and treatments” is -44, 26% to 70%. Very bad!
…no, I get what you meant. The suburban married churchgoing white women over 45 but not yet retired, in Wisconsin, who looks at Donald “SEND THEM HOME” Trump and looks at Elizabeth Warren and votes for Trump was always going to vote for Trump anyway. They would vote for Trump over Biden, or Inslee, or Harris. She may not say it out loud because she knows it sounds bad, but in the privacy of the voting booth, she is going to vote to keep every scintilla of what she has.
Or maybe she wouldn’t do that. Maybe she would vote for Warren, because she had a change of heart and it was the best thing to do for the country. Or maybe she has a brother who has had a run of bad luck, who has no health insurance, no income, and is struggling to afford insulim every month.
I don’t think we can afford to moderate what we do based on what we think might happen if we do or don’t do something. How many times have you heard “If we impeach Trump wins?” How about “If we don’t impeach Trump wins?” “If Biden wins the nomination Trump will win again” compared too “If Biden loses the nomination Trump will win again?”
Everybody has a “hot take” on what will win the next election. “Medicare for All is dangerous” is simply yet another “hot take.”
Warren and Sanders think that their policies are the best way forward for America. I live in a country with universal health care that saved my life, it saved my brothers life, it saved my mothers life and it kept my dad alive to a very good old age. Thousands of dollars of medical care and we paid zero out of pocket. There is absolutely no reason at all why a nation with the resources of the United States of America couldn’t do exactly the same thing.
If you don’t want Warren and Sanders to win then you are absolutely right to oppose them. But if you are going to oppose them then don’t do it off the back of misrepresenting how universal healthcare works in the rest of the world. Thats all I ask and I think thats entirely fair. I think that Warren and Sanders positions on insurance companies is an abolutely fair thing to push back on them about. But the elections aren’t going to be held tomorrow. Let the debates play out.