Fallacy of the excluded middle. Not gonna dignify it. Way off topic from OP, at any rate.
Good post. Getting to universal coverage doesn’t require the abolition of private insurance. There are many ways to get to UC. But all ways to get to UC do require a government presence. There’s no way to get to UC unless our government is willing to do the things that are known that can get us there.
Just to correct some misconceptions …
That’s not typically how it works, although sometimes private supplemental insurance does cover some (usually minor) items that aren’t part of the public system. More typically, though, the co-existence of public and private insurance is in the form of a two-tier system where you’re either in the public system or the private system on an all-or-nothing basis, one or the other. In most countries, as in Canada and the UK, the public system offers comprehensive coverage without co-pays and no limitations for all medically necessary procedures.
Switzerland, yes, and it’s one of the reasons that their per-capita health care costs are among the highest in the world, though completely dwarfed by the astronomical costs in the US. Still, the Swiss system is universal, highly regulated, and subsidized when necessary.
But the German public system uses a network of tightly regulated “sickness funds” which are non-profit and community-rated, and all offer basically the same benefits, the net effect of which is that it operates much like single-payer, and the network of different payers is more historical happenstance than anything else. This system is completely distinct from the private insurance tier, which operates much like the commercial American system and is only available to those above a certain income threshold and is utilized by just a little over 10% of the population.
Which is still quite different from the 0% Warren and Sanders would allow. In the U.S., 11% is almost 40 million people.
That’s a totally bizarre and utterly distorted interpretation of the facts I just laid out. The 10% or so who choose to go with the private insurance tier do so voluntarily and basically because they can afford superficial amenities, like coverage for private rooms in hospitals that look more like hotels. But everyone is entitled to choose the public system which offers unconditional and unlimited coverage of all medically necessary procedures. Canada has seen no need for a private insurance tier at all.
Yours is the “totally bizarre and utterly distorted interpretation”, at least insofar as I can even make out what you are saying at all. What you are describing in Germany sounds like the “Medicare for all who want it” approach that all the other top- and middle-tier candidates support, and which Warren and Sanders would not allow. What is “distorted” about that? 
Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying?
That’s right. And 11% is much less than the US population share who have private insurance (over half the US is on private insurance). As best I can tell, Sanders would not allow private insurance at all. I haven’t studied Warren’s plan - if it’s any different than Sanders.
So, it would be very disruptive to go to Sanders’ version of M4A. Some other versions aren’t as absolutist in getting rid of Private insurance, but still achieve UC.
See the link for a look at some countries and how they use different means to achieve UC. The Netherlands and Switzerland seem to use what I would call “doing Obamacare right” approach and they achieved UC, and seem happy with it. We could do the same in the US and get to UC via an “ACA done right” option:
She doesn’t have her own plan. She endorses Bernie’s. And she and Bernie were the only major candidates to raise their hands and say they would outlaw private health insurance.
OK thanks for the clarification. I didn’t watch the debate.
Here’s a report by the US Census Bureau that lays out a lot of stats on health coverage in the US. It says that 67% of Americans with health coverage has a type of private health insurance - either through their employer, their union, or purchased individually on-exchange or off-exchange.
IVAPS. So you mean Internal Vapor Application Penumbra Slicer? Or maybe Index of Venal Ambulance Potash Succubi? Or is it something else? Don’t keep us in suspense!
Do you think it’s cute or hip to only offer initialisms? Like some teenaged Leetspeaker with her teenaged friends? Are you just lazy? Do you have no wish for people to understand what you’re saying? You’ve done this several times already in this thread. Say what you mean. Don’t try to make us look it up. Just fucking write it out. WTF? (That stands for Whiskey Tango Foxtrot).
I was just calling it the word the doctor used. It’s for a rare type of central sleep apnea produced in some patients by therapy with a less expensive BiPAP machine. This is the machine Blue Cross/Blue Shield bought for me after titration via my third sleep study (also expensive, also covered by BC/BS): ResMed AirCurve 10 ASV w/Humidair Humidifier – HelpMedicalSupplies
[Bolding mine]
Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure.
See how easy that was? Maybe someone can tail behind after every post of yours to write out what you seem unwilling to. Why are you unwilling? It’s not like I’m suggesting you spell out what **USA **or SDMB means. Why not be reasonable and mature?
Dial back the hostility. There is no rule against using acronyms. There is a rule against insults so if you feel you must, the Pit is right around the corner.
[/moderating]
Your confusion is mystifying to me, as the health care options in Germany and most other countries are very easy to understand: everyone is entitled to health care, whether or not they can afford it. Period. In many countries, those with ample means can choose a private option, but to directly quote what I said earlier, “the 10% or so who choose to go with the private insurance tier do so voluntarily and basically because they can afford superficial amenities, like coverage for private rooms in hospitals that look more like hotels.”
But, unlike US Medicare, the public option doesn’t exhibit the ruthless savagery of limiting access to medically necessary care, such as throwing a patient out of hospital simply because a set number of days have expired and that’s all they’re going to pay for. I live in Canada and, like the citizens of most of the countries in the civilized world, I can just take it for granted that if I’m sick, I will get the health care I need, without conditions, co-pays, co-insurance, forms, certifications, or any other bullshit, regardless of what it costs. Maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying? Maybe you don’t understand how health care really works in the rest of the world?
It looks like you don’t understand what I am saying, or what the other Democratic candidates are saying. All of them advocate going to universal healthcare for everyone, as a human right. That does not mean banning private insurance.
I am truly mystified as to where you are getting this. Did you read the whole thread?
Actually Sanders plan does effectively plan private Insurance. Altho he calls it medicare for all, it bears little relation to actual Medicare. It’s simply pure socialized medicine. I think Warren likes the same plan.
Others want Medicare for all, which means of course lots of private insurance- Medicare Parts C &D, and of course some will want cadillac plans.
That’s because health care is a human right, and therefore should be universal.
Correct, it obviously does not mean banning private insurance. Almost no country has done that. Canada has done so (for medically necessary coverage) for specific reasons having to do with the proximal influence of the US insurance lobby and the massively profitable private hospital industry, but most other countries continue to offer private insurance as an available tier for those people who want that option and can afford it. I never said otherwise. But if they don’t choose that option, or can’t afford it, they are still fully covered for all essential health care.
Getting what? I think your reading comprehension is seriously deficient here. Go back and carefully read my factual statements. If there’s something you still don’t understand or find mystifying, please be specific about exactly what it is so I can explain it.
According to whom? And what if others disagree?
Let’s not cast aspersions about others’ reading comprehension.
[/moderating]