why medicare for all makes sense

Author: linate ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 83
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate

    here is a bunch of information on how medicare for all would probably be cheaper with better quality and shorter wait times, than our current system

  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @linate
    It depends how you define it. Medicare for all controlled only by the government would be a complete failure. However, a mix of government and private would likely fair much better. I say let there be more competition and also allow government to compete as well. Then you can start making some changes. And btw, Canadians come here bc we do have better medical services. Actually, bc of our system now... America is the leader in medical innovations. That is why a tax funded system wouldn't be good without private competition... it isn't worth it to halt innovation imho.  
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    Our government is already overburdened with excessive responsibilities. It's unfair to ask the government to take on more jobs without removing other burdens.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,340
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Outplayz
    deja vu?

    just add the links from debateisland lol, can't rehash this again here too.
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,340
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @Greyparrot
    Our government is already overburdened with excessive responsibilities. It's unfair to ask the government to take on more jobs without removing other burdens.

    Our government is already overburdened with excessive regulations. 

    Supply and demand.  The demand for doctors is much too high therefore higher prices due to no competition.  Who controls the number of students accepted into med schools and who provides the funding, can you guess?  Medicare for all will increase demand of an already too limited supply, yep makes sense to me, not!

    If I need a to see a dermatologist why do they need to know about delivering babies?  Shouldn't they have to know enough to do their job w/o all the extra stuff they will never use in such a practice?  That would lower their tuition cost and number of years probably.  That could even be disclosed so you could choose to see a dermatologist who has done O.B. care, since I'm a man idgaf.  If it saves me money, let me make that choice.
    should a foot doctor need to know how to do a colonoscopy?
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts

    on average most other countries have thirty three percent more doctors than we do. on average, we spend twice as much as they do too. it's not all because of the limited supply of doctors that is why we are so expensive. as the link says, we use the bargaining power that comes along with the government healhcare to lower costs, and get rid of administrative cost from the insurance middle man. you can see this is where to save all that money: medicare spends a fifth less than insurance due to regulating costs, and medciaid spends a third less. insurance spends thirty cents on the dollar on profit and aministration (many hopsitals have as many billing experts as they do hospital beds) 

    we also know that most states have less than ten percent of people uninsured.... if you have five percent uninsured, giving them healthcare isn't going to drastically change the demand for doctors. this is both why the wait lines wouldn't be an issue, and why increased demand for doctors wouldn't be such an issue either. 

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,340
    3
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @linate
    there's plenty of ways and place to save money, competition and more doctors is just one.  anyone who has a UHC theory admits usage will go up and wait times will increase.  it's not just about no insurance, there's also under insured.  When you remove financial barrier people are more demanding and will request testing that they really don't need because it's "free" to them.  This happens already and I see no evidence that a UHC would stop that.
    So you agree that both governmental and organizational bureaucracy is keeping the number of doctors lower than it should be?
    Since you have identified many areas that could be addressed to lower costs and increase access, why hasn't it happened?
    Why is a UHC the only model that can fix these issues?
    Is the UHC the only model that will increase the number of doctors?  If so why?  If no then why not?
    let's stick with the number of doctors as this is an elephant we are attempting to eat.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    You can have the trust-busting government eliminate the AMA and make it illegal for doctors to unionize. Also the government can stop imposing unfair licensing practices. That would increase doctors for sure.
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts

    the usa is one of the worst countries when it comes to wait times, when all other developed countries has some sort of universal care.

    yes we should get more doctors. that's not the main reason it's so expesensive here, as we can tell that increasing doctors by a third isn't going to cut costs by a half, which is where we need to be to be like other countries. 

    we don't have to have medicare for all to save money by regulating costs. switzerland uses an obamacare like system that is affordable. again, the main reason they are affordable is because they regulate costs. 

    i dont know if people are so underinsured that it significantly affects them. so i dont think getting medciare for all would instantly make them cause too much more demand. obamacare requires minimum coverage so i'd think everyone gets what they need. granted, if we just let people go where they want whenever they want with no copays or deductibles or anything, it could be pretty bad. but that's not the way medicare is set up now, and it's not a reason to be against universal care. it's just a reason not to support that sort of system. 

    if we increase insurance to the remaining ten percent, it won't drastically cause demand to increase that much, and if we increase the number of doctors, that would very much offset increased demand anyway. 

    given all the information in the OP link, why would anyone b e against getting everyone healthcare and making it affordable with better quality?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate

  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @Greyparrot
    even my link states that canada is worse when it comes to wait times. that is not new information and doesn't establish anything. every other country worth comparing to has better wait times than we do, and covers everyone. if your concern is wait times, you should say "yes i will support medicare for all, or something to cover everyone, as long as it's contingent on getting more doctors". 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate
    Just getting seen quick isn't nearly as important as quality of care. If a nurse gives you 2 aspirin and shows you the door, you've been had. 

    Government run healthcare is great..... until you get sick. The entire world travels to the USA to get quality care.
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    --> @Greyparrot

    that weebly link in the OP says that only 1 out of nine hundred come here for the healthcare per year. that's not exactly people flooding to get here. people do go other places from here because of our wait time problem, and the cost problem. 

    https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    that 1 in 900 stat is for canada. most other countries have even fewer people coming over for healthcare. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate
    any is too much. 1 out of 900 can have a fatal condition that Canada can't fix.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    I'm sorta on Debate Island. Do you have the same username there? 
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    I don't know... it will just create new jobs and organizations which might not be a bad thing. However, i don't want a lot of government involvement. There just needs to be a little nudge from someone to correct the healthcare industry. I don't know if they can do it on there own. If they can, then we should try that but it's just not happening. I am afraid they are too set in their ways and prices. They are making a ton load of money. Giving that up, even a bit, won't happen easy. That is why i can't see a way around "some" government involvement. 
  • Buddamoose
    Buddamoose avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 3,177
    2
    3
    6
    Buddamoose avatar
    Buddamoose
    Costs from just the scope of potential savings is too narrow. An aggregate reduction to administrative costs/wastes =\= a total reduction to costs of healthcare overall. And any such systems actually addressing inequalities in access to care are questionable at best, particularly in the realm of specialized(non-routine) care(ex. surgical).[1] and longer and in some cases extremely higher than global average wait times[2]. 

    Basically, in theory it addresses inequality of potential access, but heightens inequality in practical access. And that discrepancy widens the greater the prevalence of black market access. A potential workaround implemented in Canada was to bar the private practice of medicine, but Chaoulli v Quebec[3] overturned that aspect and opened the door to private("black market") medicine. Private costs of healthcare in Canada are ridiculously expensive, but people who can afford it, still get the priority access 🙃

    To get a little spicy, it seems to me if we continue down the path I presented, you're gonna be slipping on a pair of jackboots as if they're slippers 😏


    [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4917991/


  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @linate
    :"that 1 in 900 stat is for canada. most other countries have even fewer people coming over for healthcare." 

    That number makes sense since it is either a long drive or expensive airplane ride. The point is people come here for better care in general. My uncle is a neurologist, my aunt is a dentist, my cousin is a surgeon, my other cousin is a dermatologist ... okay, 90% of my family is in healthcare. Every one of them has had a patient from overseas and there reason was it is better care here than there. 

    It is a fact that America is the leading country in medical innovation. We should strive to keep it that way. But, they should also strive to not screw over the American public. So, some government involvement is inevitable in my opinion, but UHC i see as a failure if implemented without other fail safes.  
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    Create new jobs eh? Because even the half-attempt from obamacare destroyed a lot of productive private sector jobs...for what?
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @linate
    1 out of 900 isn't a risk I want to take when I am sick...especially if the stat is 1 out of 900 healthy people.
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Greyparrot
    I get it. I'm really not for destroying competition that leads to so much innovation. But someone needs to get them to simmer down with the ridiculous costs to have healthcare. It is being abused as is resulting in us being screwed. If they can't fix it themselves... then i want someone to step in. If that has to be government; i'm for it. If it is more competition; i'm for it. I am just skeptical that competition can do it. Leaving it in the private companies hands is proving to be ineffective in reducing our healthcare costs. That is why i think more government involvement seems inevitable. I just really hope it can be done right. I feel if we let government also be a competitor in the industry... that might work. People that just can't afford it are covered. And, people that want extra perks can pay for it. It seems like a win win if done right.     
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    I get it and I hate to use the same analogy that socialists use "well that isn't real socialism"

    But it's really true that we have extremely limited competition with healthcare providers, especially with state regulated monopolies on insurance companies.
    There's plenty of things we can do to destroy medical monopolies and create competition simply by deregulating the medical industry. I think it's the second most regulated industry behind banks, correct me if i am wrong. And you know how fcked up the banking system is.
  • linate
    linate avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 222
    0
    1
    1
    linate avatar
    linate
    if a doctor sees two hundred patients a year and makes two hundred thousand a year doing it, i dont think anything monumentally different is going to occur if he sees two hundred and twenty patients and makes the same amount of money. if we continue spending 18 percent of our GDP on healthcare, while ensuring everyone is covered... when other countries dont spend much more than ten percent.... i dont think innovation will suffer. personally, id get our number down closer to other countries, but the point is we spend so much that it's all an accounting issue that we cover everyone, which is the main thing we have to focus on
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 8,269
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Outplayz
    I mean think of it this way...food is vital to survival...but generally, the government doesn't grow food for us or tell farmers how to grow food (will they kinda do with subsidies but most farmers are free to grow what the people need through a free market)

    Poor people that can't afford food get food stamps.

    Why can't we do the same thing with healthcare? Full private healthcare, with welfare for the poor? Why does government have to manage the entire thing with regulations and mandates?