That would actually be helpful, but they are shouted down if they dare to fact check or disagree with those who don't want to hear about how the situation in the US is different.

Last edited Fri Jan 26, 2018, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

assuming it is broken, and making it feasible, since hey, its feasible all over the world just not here for ...reasons, that would be worth listening to, and trusting, but shilling for the status quo is always the concern. Sure, its not necessarily or always the case, but there is just too damn much incestuousness when it comes to this whole field. Of course its worth addressing concerns broached by credible studies, and shouting them down(whoever is doing that according to you) versus dismantling their shortcomings and/or their misleading statistics or else accepting them on their merits because they hold water, is certainly not a reasonable approach to potentially factual information .

Really though, since its the page you are on, what is it about America that makes the situation sooo different, not in terms of politics, but in terms of implementability of universal health care? Yes, it would disrupt markets. That has never stopped industries from hulking other markets. There are no breaks applied to Uber or smart phones or Amazon.

The younger generations are less and less interested in traditional television.

this would come true

You have no idea...or maybe you do. As a self employed person/family, I feel like I've been fighting the healthcare fight my whole adult life. We can do so much better.

I only wish we would

Will look at it more tonight. Looks like a great place for education and selling points. Solid selling points are huge when trying to shift hearts and minds.

he's not a Democrat!!11!! arglebargle!

Diversity is the lifeblood of this nation.

So, I think it's fair to say then that Bernie IS a Democrat for all intents and purposes.

...and--even on just a student visa, my family never paid a single medical, dental or hospital bill (ER, minor surgery) because none was ever sent! It really is a pretty amazing system.

But, compared to the US, Canada's military budget was/is sub-microscopic. So, how does the US pay for this?

Frankly I am quite sick and tired of hearing about our military budget to fight wars around the globe when we have people starving and sick here.

less accessible unless you live in a big city. Even in big cities, it's not as accessible as family care. But the VA is at least really there for veterans. My husband is a veteran and uses it. The tests are cheaper than mine are, even with Kaiser. But VA is good healthcare compared to private care. The treatment is pretty much in one place for example. If you are a veteran and eligible for VA care, you get care. I don't know how comprehensive it is. It probably has some problems because the idea of universal healthcare that is free or nearly free is so dangerous to for-profit health insurance companies.

If you have VA healthcare, what do you think of it? My husband likes it.

to pay for healthcare. There are lots of ways to save with single payer. And the preventive care can be so well organized, as they pointed out in the program last night, that you save ultimately

I now have Kaiser insurance. The nurses give the flu shots. You don't have to go to your primary care doctor for every little routine thing. You don't even have to make an appointment for every routine thing. There are lots of ways to give excellent care and save money when you have single payer.

Your PCP does not enter into the equation...mine does not even give them.

Frankly I find it interesting that people think Medicare for all is cheap...trust me Medicare is not. It is also a very complicated system. I know, I just got on it.

to healthcare.

I'm on Medicare. My husband and I hardly use it because we are blessed with great health. But Kaiser makes sure that we get our checkups and preventive care.

Curious. Do you have the stats for all the countries with single payer and their tax rate to support it? I heard it is expensive and that is why Vermont rejected the idea and California put it on hold.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

65.

See the bottom of this post for a Wikipedia page that compares health care costs in various countries.

Here are the costs in Sweden which is probably about as expensive as healthcare gets in single payer countries:

1000 kr = US$125 so 100 kr is $12.50

One-day hospital stay 100 kr
Primary care visit 100- 300 kr
Specialist visit 400 kr
12 months of prescriptions (maximum) 2,200 kr

https://transferwise.com/gb/blog/healthcare-system-in-sweden

In addition, in Sweden, apparently healthcare is paid for through municipal taxes according to that article. (I find that hard to believe.)

Costs for health and medical care amounted to approximately 9 percent of Sweden’s gross domestic product in 2005, a figure that remained fairly stable since the early 1980s. By 2015 the cost had risen to 11.9% of GDP -the highest in Europe.[4] Seventy-one percent of health care is funded through local taxation, and county councils have the right to collect income tax. The state finances the bulk of health care costs, with the patient paying a small nominal fee for examination. The state pays for approximately 97% of medical costs.[5]

When a physician declares a patient to be ill for whatever reason (by signing a certificate of illness/unfitness), the patient is paid a percentage of their normal daily wage from the second day. For the first 14 days, the employer is required to pay this wage, and after that the state pays the wage until the patient is declared fit.

(See also the very low infant mortality rate in Sweden on this Wikipedia page.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden

The French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1] In 2011, France spent 11.6% of GDP on health care, or US$4,086 per capita,[2] a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.

Most general physicians are in private practice but draw their income from the public insurance funds. These funds, unlike their German counterparts, have never gained self-management responsibility. Instead, the government has taken responsibility for the financial and operational management of health insurance (by setting premium levels related to income and determining the prices of goods and services refunded).[1] The French government generally refunds patients 70% of most health care costs, and 100% in case of costly or long-term ailments. Supplemental coverage may be bought from private insurers, most of them nonprofit, mutual insurers. Until 2000, coverage was restricted to those who contributed to social security (generally, workers or retirees), excluding some poor segments of the population; the government of Lionel Jospin put into place universal health coverage and extended the coverage to all those legally resident in France. Only about 3.7% of hospital treatment costs are reimbursed through private insurance, but a much higher share of the cost of spectacles and prostheses (21.9%), drugs (18.6%) and dental care (35.9%) (figures from the year 2000). There are public hospitals, non-profit independent hospitals (which are linked to the public system), as well as private for-profit hospitals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

Dental care was always included in my single-payer plans. (My dentist in one country was horrified to see that I had mercury in my fillings. Mercury had not been used in that country in fillings for a long time. He took them all out because he said they were dangerous. I don't think dentists use mercury here any more either.) It hasn't been in the plans I have had here unless I paid extra.

Also, there were lots of extras in the European plans that you would pay a lot for here. For instance, when I was in France, the health insurance provided exercise classes for women following birth so that their core muscles could get back into healthy shape. I could not participate because I had a cesarean -- and had to heal the wound but I think that is a great idea. It makes women stronger, and encourages them to exercise throughout their lives.

Here is a comparison of the cost of insurance in the US per capita with other countries:

US: $9,892

France: $4,600

Germany: $5,551 (not the most expensive)

Spain: $3,248

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The cost depends on the cost of living in general in the country, so the pay can be assumed to be higher in the countries in which health insurance is more expensive. (Not so true for the US compared to Germany.)

Remember. Their health insurance includes a lot that ours does not -- not just dental care and exercise classes for French women but detox for alcoholics, etc. that we pay for through other means. Our healthcare is expensive, very expensive which is why single payer here seems too expensive to legislators. It's a vicious circle.

Check out our life expectancy. It is low compared to countries in general that have single payer. I've posted on that before. And our infant mortality rate -- where you really notice that a certain segment of our population does not have adequate, not even adequate healthcare is an embarrassment.

US ---- 5.80 deaths per 1,000 live births.

France ---- 3.20 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Germany ---- 3.40 deaths per 1,000 live births

Greece ---- 4.60 although it is a relatively poor country

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

I hope you will have a chance to look at these pages. I think I will save this post myself.

We have great healthcare outcomes for those who can afford healthcare insurance and healthcare itself. But . . . . we have so many very, very poor people who are not covered.

It was actually pretty straight forward. It became complicated as the insurance industry, pharmaceutical companies, and other for profit medical organizations wanted to protect their piece of the pie.

There is no reason Medicare should not pay for long term care or in home care, but it doesn't. The government should also be able to negotiate bulk rates for medications but they can't.

You ask yourself why, follow the money, and then you know why Medicare is so complicated.


You are right that it would not be cheap. Healthcare is not cheap, but with one entity managing the payments, it would probably be a bit cheaper and more predictable.

All had single-payer, each in its own form. It wasn't exactly government healthcare in all of them. Some of the insurance companies in at least one country were private but ran on money collected by the government taken out of people's paychecks. But, as Bernie points out, you did not pay for the insurance beyond what was taken out of your paycheck.

The healthcare was excellent.

In France, the doctors saved my life as well as that of my baby. I love single-payer insurance.

I've had estimates for my care in the low-middle 6-figure range. $300-500K.

My out-of-pocket? Parking.

How do you think I feel about the system?

It saved Michael Douglas's life too, and he's got the $$ and pull to see the best doctors in the the US.

and yet it costs half as much as the American system per capita, and covers every citizen from cradle to grave, for any ailment, no matter if working or not, or where they live.....

What does that say about the US system?

I have Kaiser which is as close to single payer in terms of its internal organization as I can get.

I hate the whole race to find a provider on my plan thing.

And it is terrible that if you go to another state, the hospital or care provider has to check to see if your insurance will cover your care.

I went to visit a daughter in another state and thought I needed to go to urgent care. We called to arrange to go, and the hospital immediately asked me about my insurance and said they had to check to make sure I was insured before I went. I'm well above 65 and on Medicare. How ridiculous. But understandable. Because they wanted to make sure they would be paid for their work. But our system is truly deplorable. And most Americans don't even know that it is odd that the first thing they have to do when they go to a doctor is to make sure their insurance will cover the cost. And co-pays get higher every year.

I figure the co-pay probably just about pays for all the paperwork required for the medical profession to navigate our insane insurance system.

We waste so much money on paperwork when we go to hospitals and doctors.

Let's get smart and go for some form of single-payer. The single refers to the fact that there is one payer, the government which takes a small percentage of the paycheck of every working American to cover everyone. And if you lose your job or can't work because you are too sick, you remain insured until you get another job or can work again.

I hope everyone watches Bernie's internet show on health care insurance. It was excellent.

That some use a public/private mix. Yes its true, even in Canada, that some of the services are provided by outside private companies, like lab work. And there is additional coverage that you can buy or some companies provide. BUT every one of these countries still guarantees basic healthcare by government law. Which is all most Canadians have. But this is enough for all I described in the post I made above this one. If some part is provided by a private firm it must conform to the Canada Health Act, of which there are similar laws in other countries. So, in essence, it eventually boils down to a Single Payer minimum standard.

And here we do not even ever use the word "insurance". And terms like "pre-existing condition" is not even a phrase. Its all simply health care.

I feel for my American brothers and sisters. You should have had the same decades ago, when most other countries did it. Now it will be more difficult as the insurance industries are so entrenched. (And in the pockets of politicians, both R and D) And also the richer hospitals and doctors would have to give up something.

....it's a lot less expensive and easier to administer a program that has 1/5 as many people.

It is less expensive to administer a larger program because you need fewer CEOs who get paid the big bucks, and you also need fewer copies of the most expensive equipment. It's more expensive of course if EVERYONE has medical care. And it's providing medical care to everyone -- that's what we don't do and they do.

But if you actually do a little research into the percentage of GDP paid for medical care in the countries that have single payer and in our country that does not have it, you will discover that in terms of GDP single payer costs less and that the overall health including longevity, that is life expectancy and infant mortality in countries with single payer is better than ours with our system.

So based on the statistics from other countries that have single payer, it is cheaper than our system and provides better outcomes.

66 million people is larger than California which has 39 million. California, Oregon and Washington State might join together and have a program.

But then, on the other hand, there are countries in Europe, like Austria with between 8 and 9 million that manage smaller systems quite well.

So the size of the country is not that important although you need a pool of members in the insurance system that spreads the risk so that a person with an expensive medical problem is paid for by the money from the many people with almost no problem.

If our medical outcomes matched those in the countries with single payer, and if everyone in the US could afford our health insurance, I wouldl not bother to advocate for single payer.

But we are shooting ourselves in the foot with our health insurance system. We are making shareholders in insurance companies very comfortable every time we become physically uncomfortable. I'd rather spend the money that they make in profit from my misery on things that would make my life better. I think it is great if capitalists make a profit from selling wonderful new cars or clothes or something like that. But making money off some poor victim of cancer????? How sick can you get?????

Let's have a system that minimizes the profit of the investors and maximizes access to healthcare. That's single payer, not what we have now.

On a per capita basis, it should be cheaper to fund and administer a larger pool.

Booya!

I'm not an economist so I don't know for sure. But starting with populations the size of the West Coast would be good. Seems to me.

Your argument does not add up. We have 5 times more people to pay in.

Okay that makes perfect sense in magic math world.

Currently there are 44 million people on Medicare so there is some comparable numbers. Medicare, though not perfect by any means (mostly because it has been neutered over the years by lobbyists for the insurance, pharmaceutical, and for profit medical services), still enjoys higher satisfaction rates than other insurance plans, and they serve an older and sicker population.

We can do single payer economically. What we lack is the mindset and political will.

The experience was excellent, and I got to my destination on time.

I guess that qualifies me to advise everyone on how flights can all be on time, everywhere.

I love flying on planes. I am an expert on how flight navigation and schedules work now.

Any questions?

In our current system, insurance companies will do all they can to pay out as little as possible. That is why I support single payer or universal health care.

I receive a pension from two of the largest corporations in the world.

But he's 10000% correct (and yes, I meant that number).

Don't rule him out.

IMO , he would have beaten Trump in 2016. (and taken more Dems with him) The country was in the mood for anti establishment. He had enough support from small r independents, as well as the rust belt states because of his anti NAFTA and anti TPP stances. And the Republicans, (and Russians) wouldn't have had enough time to come up with enough of a sustained brainwashing fake news smear like they did with Hillary.

So unless anyone else comes along and ain't afraid to put forth bold progressive ideas like he is, and instead are beholden to the conservative arm of the party and tone it back to "at least we are not THEM", he'd win it.

Why keep feeding false narratives about Bernie.

Yes. The reality was "Hillary would have won if she wasn't attacked so much"

The point is that Bernie did not have that problem. In fact he had an advantage with the Rust Belt, and with independents. Add to that a Democrat vote energized by the youth vote. That is not a false narrative. All the Dems needed was a few thousand more votes.

And I don't even think a hastily put together fake news attack from the primaries till voting day would have stifled enough of that advantage.

constantly attacked. So, no, I don't agree with you in your previous post. It's a proven fact now that the Russians targeted Hillary exclusively to lower her approval numbers. They were not the only ones attacking Hillary, though.

the wooooosh. The numbers show who and how those 70,000-something people that decided the election believed the prolonged propaganda. Let's not let that happen again.

because of this unity thing.....

Let's do it again. Hillary would have won if Californian's votes counted the same as those of voters in other states.

Trump only won the electoral college. He is basically a loser.

Hillary actually won the democratic vote. It was the way the votes were counted that put Trump in the White House.

And that is in spite of the help that Trump got.

But I like Bernie Sanders very much, and find the hatred for him to be way out of bounds and disgusting.

and it wasn't limited to the Right wing.

involved a bogus FBI investigation.

The GOP took HRC down with a whole lot of help from Comey and the FBI. Without Comey's repeated interference we would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide.

Than again, I admit that that isn't saying very much.

It's just that the votes of Californians don't count for much.

Our "democracy" is a travesty. That's why Trump, the imposter, is in the White House, not Hillary. It is the only reason.

In addition to Comey and the FBI, we had

- people on the left believing and repeating GOP and Russian anti-Hillary propaganda in a way never before seen due to microtargeting on social media

- the statistical improbability of a party keeping the White House for more than two consecutive terms.

- Sexism/misogyny on both the left and right.


Obama not winning by a landslide is more surprising, even with the racism.

I wanted to just back away slowly from this thread. I've contributed to the battle enough.

But I can't let someone, maybe inadvertently but, smear the left along with the right seemingly at equal levels as the reason Hillary lost.

Your second point about the statistical improbablity may be true in a social science way but its the other two points I do not get.


"the left" What do you mean by that first off? IMO the left typically are from the community based, socially aware, empathetic to the underprivileged, supporters of civil rights and equal opportunity. Of using tax dollars in smart ways like universal medicare, education, maternity leave pay. And higher minimum wages. All to help move up the lowest classes into positions where they can contribute more to society and pay taxes as well. That kind of sustained economic growth, raising the standards of many people who will then buy more, rather than the right's fake economic idea of handing all the tax money to the 1%, who will then trickle it down to the poor masses, with everything having a profit margin of course.

The same applies to your other point. It was 'the left' that first championed and still champions, issues of sexism in society. And the right that typically poo poos terms like Women's Liberation etc...and puts roadblocks against equal rights for women. I shouldn't even have to point that out.

People on the left are also statistically better educated than those on the right. We are more knowledgeable. If you add that to the former paragraphs of ideals, you would never agree with a the fake news meme that there was any (of any real numbers) on 'the left' that believed the Russian, and alt-right CT stories. Its very lazy and easy to just say ALL opposition to Hillary was the same, whether from the left or right. Imply that they all had the same gripes. All foolishly believing the same stupid shit. NO they did not!

Those that are in the more left side of the party, who supported Bernie Sanders in the last primary, did not think Hillary ran a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor. We did not, under Bernies example, even think the email 'scandal' was worth talking about. And certainly not any of the murder most foul fables. In fact those were maddening red herrings. The opposition from the left to her was her cozy corporate "third way" approach to governing. Out Republican the Republicans. Which had, at least partly, been the reason for the historical losses, from federal to state, to municipal, across the country in the last decade. With setting themselves up as being no different and all part of 'the swamp".

If you want to argue that some further on the left, like Susan Sarandon represented, wanted too much too soon, once they saw that Sanders was gaining popularity during the primaries, and it got to their heads and just couldn't let it go....fine. I could understand at least that argument. Even so, i think overwhelmingly most Democrats, still voted Democrat. The Green Party got 1% of the vote! The Libertarian Party got 3%, which is traditionally a right wing party. So 3x more Republican votes were lost to their party's votes than our party suffered from the Green party running.

We lost (technically) because of more than one thing. The perfect storm. I don't think anyone was aware of the complete brainwashing effect that decades long sustained fake news CT propaganda had on middle America, (mostly). The character assassination of the Clintons was relentless. With obviously a lot of help from the former KGB director in Russia. Add to that the gerrymandering, the Crosscheck program, the ID laws, the other voter suppression tactics by GOP governors across the country. The susceptible voting machines. The MSM's need for a horserace to boost ratings by amplifying Hillary's email "scandal" while giving Trump billions of free airtime and glossing over his faults in hopes he would catch up. And of course simply ignoring Sanders.

Okay, got that off my chest. Take it for what you will.

I didn't say that the left was equally as guilty as the right.

By "left" I refer those who claim to be "progressive," and the "left" that I am referring to were found on social media supporting Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders.

And no, the left are not immune to propaganda. If you were on Facebook or twitter in 2016, that was very, very clear.

The current dogma that equates questioning single payer with "being a corporate shill" or "hating Bernie Sanders" is evidence that the left doesn't always look at evidence-based arguments.

"Imply that they all had the same gripes. All foolishly believing the same stupid shit." - that is a strawman of your own making, and not supported by my statements.

"We lost (technically) because of more than one thing."

Yes, that is what I was saying. And some of those things were due to actions and beliefs by many who self-identified as "Left" that were based on confirmation bias and not facts.

Take that for what you will.

so far as he did because of caucuses. There are no caucuses on the GE. Millions of Dems did not vote for him

Sanders was never vetted, never attacked by the right (or left). Had he been the nominee, The GOP would heve destrtoyed him...there was plenty of material they could have used (hello, tax returns, honeymoon i Russia).

Would he have won the general. Of COURSE the reality was Hillary won the primary. Obviously I'm not disputing that. That fact is a red herring to the argument. Also a red herring is that she 'won' the election....by voter count, that's not in dispute.

But again....more agreement with the, if they are anything they are relentless, Bernie Bashers. "Sanders was never vetted, never attacked by the right (or left)."......EXACTLY!

To then leap frog from there to "Had he been the nominee, The GOP would heve destrtoyed him." is highly debatable. The last chance for Bernie was the California primaries. Culminating on June 7th. That means the GOP and Putin would have had only a few months to mount whatever faux scandals they could concoct. (Compare that to literally decades of the 'vast right wing conspiracy' that Hillary had been faced with and the monstrous character they had created of her to a large segment of voters). But tax returns?...not an issue against Trump. Honeymoon in Russia? Compared to sleeping with Putin?...no contest.

Sorry but no one really knows what would have been the outcome. Its just my opinion based on the facts that he'd still get the vast majority of Democrats to vote Democrat (you would have voted for him right?). Add to that the higher Independent support, which in a hockey analogy is like a "4 point game" when playing within your own division. As in...whatever Independent votes Sanders got, would NOT have gone to Trump. Add to that that younger voters that may have come out. Add to that his greater support in the North East Rustbelt. And IMO, add to that he could engage a stage better than Hillary. She was great in a lot of ways, but her strength was not the charismatic stage presence level of a Trump... or a Sanders. I would have loved to see how he'd have dealt with Trump in those debates.

her deep knowdlege on the issues, plus her ability to lay out realistic plans to accomplish her goals are just two issues in which Sanders lacked.

And I find the notion that there was enough time to dig the dirt on him highly unlikely. The material was there, and they had countless of agents whose only job was to get dirt om trump's opponent. In this day and age finding information on anyone takes hours...sometimes minutes.

The tax returns and honeymoon in Russia are just a couple of (valid) issues. There's a lot more that, rightly or wrongly- could be used against him.

So, my opinion based on facts -the way I see it, Sanders would have been crished, losing both the EC and popular vote.

We both have our own opinions, based on how we both read the facts.

evidence that counters their opinion.

"Reading facts?"

I think you meant to say - "based on the sources that we trust to give us facts."

Actually, that's more than opinion, that's logic.

And really, what is more establishment than a 25 year Capitol Hill politician? The far right thought that Obama was a blazing, radical lefty, and they were screaming that Hillary was going to be "four more years of Obama."

You think a self-described Socialist, who stated support for legal abortion, and wanted to expand government programs was going to be that "change" they were looking for?

DOTUS is as establishment, old school, pandering to evangelical, white male authoritarian, anti-government, capitalism on a silver platter as you are going to get in a candidate - he was the "change" the rust belt wanted, because a Black man had represented the "establishment" for 8 years.

Hillary's ideas were bold and progressive, and she had a record of accomplishment to show for it.

I voted for him in the primaries, and then voted Democratic on the GE. I held my nose for Clinton, she wasn't the greatest candidate and was barely tolerable. I honestly was not surprised to see Trump secure the win. The election is over, and have moved on.

I'm still looking at Bernie as a viable candidate. I don't think health is an issue because I'm currently looking at his older brother who is of excellent health in his mid 80s that currently lives in London.

he would be more likely to be a viable candidate.

in the unwanted category.

That would be something worth addressing.

As far as I can tell, the number was self-reported from broadcast "partners" The TYT, Attn, and NowThis.

According to the partners, 1.1 million people watched the event, about as many as play the popular smartphone trivia game HQ during its twice-daily live episodes.

are never discussed. I don't think they provided a tally in California's single payer plan, either. They just submitted a values statement and let the elected politician who had to address costs take the heat.

in other countries with ours. We pay far more than other countries pay.

I'm probably violating a rule I don't know about but this is what I wrote in response to someone else's questio

See the bottom of this post for a Wikipedia page that compares health care costs in various countries.

Here are the costs in Sweden which is probably about as expensive as healthcare gets in single payer countries:

1000 kr = US$125 so 100 kr is $12.50

One-day hospital stay 100 kr
Primary care visit 100- 300 kr
Specialist visit 400 kr
12 months of prescriptions (maximum) 2,200 kr

https://transferwise.com/gb/blog/healthcare-system-in-sweden

In addition, in Sweden, apparently healthcare is paid for through municipal taxes according to that article. (I find that hard to believe.)

Costs for health and medical care amounted to approximately 9 percent of Sweden’s gross domestic product in 2005, a figure that remained fairly stable since the early 1980s. By 2015 the cost had risen to 11.9% of GDP -the highest in Europe.[4] Seventy-one percent of health care is funded through local taxation, and county councils have the right to collect income tax. The state finances the bulk of health care costs, with the patient paying a small nominal fee for examination. The state pays for approximately 97% of medical costs.[5]

When a physician declares a patient to be ill for whatever reason (by signing a certificate of illness/unfitness), the patient is paid a percentage of their normal daily wage from the second day. For the first 14 days, the employer is required to pay this wage, and after that the state pays the wage until the patient is declared fit.

(See also the very low infant mortality rate in Sweden on this Wikipedia page.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden

The French health care system is one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1] In 2011, France spent 11.6% of GDP on health care, or US$4,086 per capita,[2] a figure much higher than the average spent by countries in Europe but less than in the US. Approximately 77% of health expenditures are covered by government funded agencies.

Most general physicians are in private practice but draw their income from the public insurance funds. These funds, unlike their German counterparts, have never gained self-management responsibility. Instead, the government has taken responsibility for the financial and operational management of health insurance (by setting premium levels related to income and determining the prices of goods and services refunded).[1] The French government generally refunds patients 70% of most health care costs, and 100% in case of costly or long-term ailments. Supplemental coverage may be bought from private insurers, most of them nonprofit, mutual insurers. Until 2000, coverage was restricted to those who contributed to social security (generally, workers or retirees), excluding some poor segments of the population; the government of Lionel Jospin put into place universal health coverage and extended the coverage to all those legally resident in France. Only about 3.7% of hospital treatment costs are reimbursed through private insurance, but a much higher share of the cost of spectacles and prostheses (21.9%), drugs (18.6%) and dental care (35.9%) (figures from the year 2000). There are public hospitals, non-profit independent hospitals (which are linked to the public system), as well as private for-profit hospitals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_France

Dental care was always included in my single-payer plans. (My dentist in one country was horrified to see that I had mercury in my fillings. Mercury had not been used in that country in fillings for a long time. He took them all out because he said they were dangerous. I don't think dentists use mercury here any more either.) It hasn't been in the plans I have had here unless I paid extra.

Also, there were lots of extras in the European plans that you would pay a lot for here. For instance, when I was in France, the health insurance provided exercise classes for women following birth so that their core muscles could get back into healthy shape. I could not participate because I had a cesarean -- and had to heal the wound but I think that is a great idea. It makes women stronger, and encourages them to exercise throughout their lives.

Here is a comparison of the cost of insurance in the US per capita with other countries:

US: $9,892

France: $4,600

Germany: $5,551 (not the most expensive)

Spain: $3,248

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

The cost depends on the cost of living in general in the country, so the pay can be assumed to be higher in the countries in which health insurance is more expensive. (Not so true for the US compared to Germany.)

Remember. Their health insurance includes a lot that ours does not -- not just dental care and exercise classes for French women but detox for alcoholics, etc. that we pay for through other means. Our healthcare is expensive, very expensive which is why single payer here seems too expensive to legislators. It's a vicious circle.

Check out our life expectancy. It is low compared to countries in general that have single payer. I've posted on that before. And our infant mortality rate -- where you really notice that a certain segment of our population does not have adequate, not even adequate healthcare is an embarrassment.

US ---- 5.80 deaths per 1,000 live births.

France ---- 3.20 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Germany ---- 3.40 deaths per 1,000 live births

Greece ---- 4.60 although it is a relatively poor country

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

I hope you will have a chance to look at these pages. I think I will save this post myself.

Sweden?

France?

Why not address Vermont.

I’m just wondering why Democrats are attacked about this when it wasn’t even viable in Vermont. Having a conversation about ideas is one thing, but assigning blame and smearing people is the reality of what has happened.

I have no evidence because we haven't tried it. But look at our infant mortality rates, and our life expectancy -- lower than other countries that have our living standard (or lower).

Vermont couldn't make it work because single payer needs to be introduced in a large state like California, in a group of states like the West Coast states or in the nation as a whole.

Right now, our incredibly high insurance costs are low because many people are not insured at all, and our insurance does not cover a lot of things (like dental care) that are covered in the European countries in which I lived.

The insurance companies make enormous profits in the US. I think it is terrible.

Vermont, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, etc. the Northeastern states might be able to pool resources and afford single payer that would insure everyone.

My brother-in-law died recently. He was in his 60s and had not been to a doctor in 30 years because he could not afford insurance.

His experience should not be possible in a country that can afford every military gadget there is. Not possible.

Our healthcare system even with Obamacare which is better than the system we had before Obamacare is a national tragedy. What in the world are people crowd sourcing the expenses of cancer treatment for????? Cancer treatment should cost only what the government takes out of your paycheck for it as it takes money out of every paycheck, a percentage of pay, to cover healthcare costs.

We are the laughing stock of the world because of our idiocy about healthcare.

The American health insurance companies and their investors make a lot of money from the pain and suffering of ordinary Americans. It's a scandal of huge proportions in my view. And Americans have no idea. They just fall for the propaganda.

Obviously, if you have single payer, you no longer pay the insurance premiums to your private insurance company. In the end, it will be cheaper. Because you take the profit out of the cost. And if it isn't cheaper, it is because the healthcare is far better in terms of accessibility and the numbers of people who, unlike my poor brother-in-law, can obtain healthcare at almost no cost -- or at least at an affordable cost.

I feel deeply about this topic. Single-payer is the way to go.

Compare infant mortality rates, life expectancies, costs of insurance. The US does not do well in any of these areas. I just posted all kinds of references on costs and the healthcare outcomes in the US. We are way behind.

they will never go for it. Helping Republicans get elected by undermining and lying about Democrats is at complete cross purposes to anything remotely progressive. That’s just a general comment, not personal.

There is no excuse for giving Vermont a pass on not implementing single payer and then expecting different results with other states/Democrats. My point is that those who are super advocates for this should be accountable and forthcoming, and NOT accusatory because it comes across as hypocritical.

You nailed it.

and not be like the GOP, who rely on dogma to contradict non-political public health analysts.

They have "Closing Planned Parenthood will end abortions" and we have "Single Payer NOW is the only way to universal health care."

https://www.axios.com/how-single-payer-helps-republicans-change-the-subject-1513305470-b9ce49aa-3bcf-4e97-857f-a48b8536ac99.html

Both have admirable goals, but get tangled up in dogma that will actually prevent the goal.

doesn't give a flying shizzle about anyone or anything. That's the reality, so to keep on daydreaming is just absurd. I can daydream all day -- what if Gore were President and global warming was made front and center national policy -- but he wasn't good enough for certain crowds, so we got Bush and his war in Iraq. That's the reality of where that kind of stupid dogma gets us.

It is hard to take this browbeating seriously when Democrats are held to obviously different and phony standards of performance than others who can't get single payer done, either. It's just mindboggling and phony.

We need to advocate and persuade people who care about healthcare.

I was shocked at Hillary Clinton's negativity on the topic during the campaign. I follow this issue more closely than I follow a lot of other issues, and her attitude on this was that it will never happen.

Oregon is coming close. California is talking about it. I think that Vermont will eventually come around if those of us who have seen single payer work (most of the developed world) just keep talking about it in a positive way.

The fact is that the for-profit insurance companies keep raising their prices way beyond what patients can afford and are willing to pay. And so, this is a win-win issue for advocates of single payer. Either for-profit companies reduce their expenses by reducing top executive pay and profits or Americans of both parties will clamor for single payer.

I plan to keep writing and arguing in favor of single-payer.

America is a country with many, many impoverished citizens who can only afford subsidized healthcare in a for-profit system and who would automatically have it in a single-payer system. When we start tracking the deaths from lack of healthcare (or the early deaths from lack of healthcare), when we become aware of our high infant mortality rate and our low life expectancy compared to countries with single payer, and when we begin to mourn those early deaths from lack of healthcare the way we mourn and notice those due to gun violence or auto accidents, it won't be a matter of party politics. Single payer healthcare will be our reality. And then we work together to make it work very well.

being realistic, and she was virtually lied about as this kind of misrepresentation you are presenting wants to perpetuate. Demonizing and misrepresenting what Democrats say and do is what gave us Trump.

This just looks like grandstanding, as anyone can talk endlessly about how wonderful things are. It doesn't mean anything if it's presented as Democrats are holding people back from single payer when that is not the reality. BTW, I notice you keep neglecting to acknowledge why Vermont doesn't have single payer.

Back to Vermont. Maybe you can bring yourself soon to repeat why Vermont doesn't have single payer -- you should present realistic talking points instead of cherry picked notions about single payer.

There are other great improvements that can be done, as well. Public option, etc. Hillary fought for universal health care literally DECADES ago. Obama's plan is the law of the land. Lots of good Democrats have made great progress. Don't hold things back with over playing things. Stick to reality.

form even now.

Here is an article that discusses the problems that Vermont's relatively tiny population cause when it comes to accessibility and costs of healthcare. The population in Vermont is under 700,000. Vermont is an example of a state that would need to work with surrounding states in any event, whether we are talking about private insurance companies or a single payer system if it wants adequate healthcare.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/03/12/high-costs-few-options-vt-health-care/98685848/

I saw a clip of Hillary dissing single payer healthcare saying it would never happen. She was quite negative about it and not very gracious on this topic either. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but I saw what I saw.

A lot of Democrats support single payer. But most Americans have no idea what single payer means. Many think it is government healthcare in which it is the government rather than an insurance company that denies your healthcare. That was not my experience.

My youngest daughter was born with terrible allergies. Her skin was broken out when she was born. I remember that the obstetrician right in the delivery room commented about how the rash would go away. It didn't. This was many years ago, and my primary care physician wanted to get a medication from the United Kingdom that had not been fully tested for my daughter. It took a couple of weeks if I remember correctly, but she got the experimental medication (something sort of homeopathic) and it worked. I think I had a better chance of getting that experimental medication on a single payer system than I would have had here with an insurance company thinking not just about the lack of official approval for the medication but about the insurance company's own profits when considering the approval.

So I had a wonderful experience with single payer. The doctors are much more in charge of the system than they are here. Here, the profits of the insurance company are always at stake. While that might seem to be an incentive to give better care to patients and certainly more preventive care (if you think about it logically), that has not been my experience. I am on the Kaiser program because I think in my opinion that system is as close to the single payer system as possible. The doctor seems to be more in charge than are the isolated primary care doctors out there that fight with insurance companies on behalf of patients in a rather helpless, disorganized way.

That's my experience anyway.

single payer. How does that duplicity work?? That seems strange.

If you take what Hillary said about single payer and apply it to what happened in Vermont -- guess what. The reality of the burden of single payer becomes very crystal clear. So your whole argument goes down the drain since you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge the reality. It's negative when Hillary talks about reality, but it's okay for Vermont to reject it because it wasn't realistic. Hmmm.

Enough with the grandstanding. Sorry if your subtext is glaring to me, much more so than the grandstanding about single payer. Sorry to hurt your feelings, too. I see what I see, as well.

"I saw a clip of Hillary dissing single payer healthcare saying it would never happen. She was quite negative about it and not very gracious on this topic either. Sorry to hurt your feelings, but I saw what I saw."

Vermont has many problems when it comes to healthcare.

Here is an article that discusses some of the problems peculiar to Vermont when it comes to healthcare.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/03/12/high-costs-few-options-vt-health-care/98685848/

It isn't just money that is a problem. It's getting access to equipment, all kinds of things.

Vermont would greatly benefit from single payer if the program crossed state lines.

Hillary is the candidate of 2016.

In my opinion, Democrats will unite and fare better in elections if they focus on issues on which everyone agrees and on which Democrats are far better than Republicans and focus less on personalities.

Focusing on personalities works for Republicans because they don't like government and working together toward social goals anyway. But the Democratic Party is about working together to achieve social and economic as well as personal goals, so focusing on issues would be better for us.

I regret this because at the very outset way back in 2012, I was part of the people in 2012 who advocated for her candidacy with my congressman, but although Hillary won the popular vote, the emphasis was too much on her being a woman, on who she was, rather than on what she would do for everyone in the country, on the issues. I don't know whether that was an intentional strategy or just happened.

In the future, we need to unite Democrats around what we want to do as a Party once in office, and less around personalities or things like gender. I feel somewhat responsible for this error. But let's not do that again.

because we do not have socialist healthcare. Every one of your criticisms about Hillary has been done to death and just divulges that you are the one engaging in personalities. It all sounds so familiar. That kind of mindless Hillary bashing is why we have Trump.

The fact that you understand completely and are sympathetic to Vermont’s rejection of single payer shows that your criticism of Hillary’s realism over the same issues are not congruent.

No need to bash gender, your last comment about uniting around gender is just really glaringly revealing.

Btw, all the European countries are really small, too.

And if that clip Hillary being realistic and relaying what health policy analysts who aren't politically motivated or beholden hurts your feelings, I'm sorry. I happen to like it when politicians are straightforward and honest, even if it means bursting some bubbles.

But facts are facts, the U.S. is the U.S. and all the repeating that they aren't doesn't change reality.

Democrats support universal health care. Single Payer isn't the only way to get there, and certainly isn't the most practical.

I would hope that progressives would want to get to universal health care in the most direct, sustainable way possible. It's very sad that dogma and tribal thinking has rendered many otherwise progressive people angry at efforts to achieve that.

And about Vermont being too small to succeed: Canada only got to federal single payer after all of the provinces did so individually, many much smaller than Vermont. Their small population didn't stop them. Why did Vermont's?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population

And why does Senator Sanders refuse to talk about any lessons learned from Vermont, especially since Single Payer is his political brand. Others seem to be able to:

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/13/550757713/why-bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-failed-in-vermont

Expand Medicare to let people buy in at 55, and bring back a public option.

She was repeating what the analysts who are not politicians or in the industry have said that Single Payer isn't likely, at least not in under 20 years, let alone eight, like Bernie was promising.

You might as well be saying that a politician who states that legal, accessible abortion is necessary for public health is "being negative" about adoption...

Hillary was instrumental in actually getting legislation passed that has gotten affordable health care to people: CHIP. She was able to do that because she listened to policy people, and didn't call anyone that had different information "corporate shills."

A lot of people who understand the US health care system are not persuaded that Single Payer as Sanders presents it is going to be feasible in terms of cost or disruption to health care delivery in a mere eight years.

Single payer is not the only way to universal health care in the US.

And I will keep on writing and sharing what actual self funded, non-politically aligned health policy analysts have to say about the very real obstacles to Single Payer in under 20 years, and not put my faith in politicians who dismiss or contradict evidence based counsel that doesn't support his political message.

https://books.google.com/books?id=3UB1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=drew+altman+incremental+expansion&source=bl&ots=uzLVGntQWB&sig=dDNbvuXnI7244N8bubDqhunmryY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_0a7JovbYAhVEGpAKHQFFATIQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=drew%20altman%20incremental%20expansion&f=false

https://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

regurgitated Hillary bashing, and the same old disingenuous Hillary bashing at that.

And it's very attractive to an anxious person looking for absolutes in a world that doesn't offer many.

You are talking about many different things, and proposing Single Payer as the panacea.

Single payer is not the way most countries acheive universal health care coverage. Yes, we have a system that has had private insurance baked since the 1940's.

Certainly setting out city streets on a grid is more efficient and navigatable, and even cheaper to maintain, but retrofitting a grid layout onto an existing city is a much, much different beast, with different costs and obstacles than starting out with that layout and growing from there. You would not be able to retrofit without disruption, demolition and making a lot of people very unhappy about the changes - even if you did it over 40 years, let alone 8, like Sanders proposes.

I, too lived in the UK and had single payer, so yes, that gives me personal experience. But I also have more of a background in health policy than you do, as indicated by your posts.

On quarter of Medicare patients pay about 20% or more of their income in out of pocket costs for health care, so yes, it costs more than "what is taken out of your paycheck."

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2017/may/medicare-out-of-pocket-cost-burdens

For instance, Canadians pay about 30% of their medical costs out of pocket, and health care costs are 11.1% of the GDP. The US is 17.6%

Keeping drug costs down is a battle in Canada and other countries:

http://healthydebate.ca/2015/03/topic/pharmacare-2

you would think that the man who has made Single Payer his political brand would.