Hillary and Ted Kennedy got CHIP implemented, and Obama and Pelosi got the ACA implemented.

Elizabeth Warren got the Consumer Protection Bureau in place.

I think you may have a different definition for ACTION than many others do, as well as "noise."

it would be better if you never posted anything positive about Bernie's campaign. Us Dems are working on incremental changes and any bold ideas only confuse the voters.

Bold accomplishments like CHIP, the ACA, the Consumer Protection Bureau... just pale in comparison to promises, promises of waving a wand and poof! there it is!

Even after decades of promises...

Decades.

to the more powerful group for its own sake -- even when it sabotages chances for healthcare reform -- can be admired, even slightly? I just don't understand.

InA, for me his quarter century of fighting his colleagues in congress instead of working with them is exactly what's wrong with him. In a nutshell. That's why when healthcare reform happened, it was because others made it happen.

If Sanders walked up and punched someone in the nose, and then drove that person to the ER, he'd have achieved more for healthcare than he did in a quarter century fighting pointlessly in congress.

it's right to call them out.

But InA, did you ever wonder if it was the fight that was most important to him, not winning? That maybe he chooses his issues in order to fight? His history since arriving in congress has no significant wins, only "fights," usually merely verbal irritations his colleagues blow off.

We will advance healthcare because there's great public demand, and it may or may not have the MfA label, but there are already several versions with that label and similar out there, and my prediction is that the final version won't be his but another less extreme. I'm seriously wondering if he's arranged it to be that way, to sabotage himself to lose to the evil corrupt Democrats and capitalists as usual, rather than support something less than he wanted.

After all, his plan would work with tweaking but in making employer-offered insurance flat illegal is extreme. You don't mind your right to have alternative insurance available taken away, your freedom to choose, but many others will object big time. His to plan to strip everyone unnecessarily of that right, instead of just offering something better that over time by far most will choose of their own free will, is very likely to lose him whatever chance he has for the nomination.
Again, he had to know this.

Btw, looking to the future of a totalitarian, one-choice government-controlled system, has it occurred to you that, if private insurance offered by employers is illegal as Sanders intends, we'll have no competition and no other insurance to compare the government benefits to?

Every 2 and 4 years, the legislators who hold the pocketbook change. There will be many times under Republican dominance when government programs will be deliberately starved for funds, and this may go on for years until people wise up and threaten to take their trouble to the polls. Wouldn't it help if people started comparing notes very early?

Wait for the debates, though, and the polls and see how this plays out.

we need to unite behind the ultimate winner.


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

and get on with the job of kicking the kleptocracy and fascism servers out of office.

The health care industry is terrified of single payer, and with reason.

Single payer would break the stranglehold that these monied interests have on the current US system.

work place insurance where the employer subsidizes it...why would I want to pay more taxes, higher premiums for Medicare for all? Only 17% of folks support Medicare for all when told they lose work place insurance. So it is not popular...and I am sick of it. We will lose if we run on this. Thankfully, Biden has a better hybrid plan which keeps the benefits of Medicare for all... for those who want it...but gives people a choice.

Now, multiply that for a family of 5 and the more you make the more it costs you per month. Does not cover vision, dental, hearing aids, and some blood tests and no drugs

we don't use unless one of us has surgery or hospitalization...The job gives us $2000 on a medical card towards out of pocket. And our premiums are reduced if we have well checkup which is free. I know my sis in law has a deductibles too on Medicare and pays over $200.00 a month. She has a good wrap because she lives with us (disabled) and pays no living expenses

....administered. They think most of it's administration is done by the Federal government, but that's not true. They collect the money but they have very little to do with it after that. PRIVATE insurance companies (the ones that everyone is clamoring to do away with) are sub-contracted to handle much of the day to day paperwork.

Another fallacy is the private insurance companies reaping in billions in profits. That is far from the truth.

Medicare For All will wind up costing MUCH more than it's proponents say, which is why there are little or no details on how to actually fund it.

The problem with all of this is that too many people listen to what others say without digging into the details for themselves.

we will be tossed out of office. The way I heard it folks wait their turn so you pay taxes even before you get it and you pay your normal premiums...yeah that will go over well.

We didn’t make much money as a company. We had to bid on contracts and the competition was fierce. We had to get super efficient. They kept riding us harder and harder til I said F this and quit after 10 years.

for her Medicare and supplemental. She had Part D, the Rx thing too but it didn't cover most of her meds, so she had to get them from Canada for another $100+/month.

She died in 2015. I used to help her figure it all out - another huge problem since it's very complicated. Don't know what it's like now.

CANADA, First Universal Medicare: Medicare was born in Saskatchewan on July 1, 1962. It would be the first government-controlled, universal, comprehensive single-payer medical insurance plan in North America. It was a difficult birth.

>The North American medical establishment and the entire insurance industry were determined to stop Medicare in its tracks. They feared it would become popular and spread, and they were right. Within 10 years all of Canada was covered by a medical insurance system based on the Saskatchewan plan, and no serious politician would openly oppose it.
The same interests that tried to prevent Medicare and are continually trying to destroy it in Canada have mostly succeeded in stopping similar progress in the United States. After more than half a century of struggle, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the private insurance industry still control the US medical system despite minor steps forward like Medicaid for the very poor and Medicare for the elderly. The latest plan passed by Congress and endorsed by the private insurance industry amounts to public subsidies for the insurance industry.

Commentators have often wondered why the campaign for state medicine succeeded in Canada and failed in the United States. The battle for Medicare occurred in the 1960s when our political culture was moving to the left...
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-birth-of-medicare

22 years after Tommy Douglas introduced universal care in Saskatchewan.

Canadian medicare wasn't rolled out nationwide. It began in a single province, and took more than two decades to be formalized into a national program.

Which state is going to step up to be the first to implement single-payer, universal care for its citizens? When one state does so, the dominoes may begin to fall.

Sid

Sanders didn't do anything to support him.

It failed.

This is hilarious ... trying to get in the news cycle with wild proclamations while someone is being ignored and neglected.

Would you like a doughnut to sooth your feelings of neglect?

The attention sought by this wild accusation is by Bernie.

Here: argue with OPEN SECRETS' "wild accusations"!



https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/03/big-pharma-insurers-hospitals-team-up-to-kill-medicare-for-all/

That is how democracy works. Stakeholders oppose legislation all the time. Environmentalists oppose offshore drilling and logging. Unions oppose right to work legislation.

It is a legitimate process and it usually results in a consensus that is palatable to all parties.

Hypothetically, if there was legislation to ban hot dogs, hot dog stand owners, Oscar Meyer and people who love hots dogs will all get together to oppose it. There is nothing sinister about it.

This is exactly why MFA is a reckless proposition. "Medicare for America" or "Medicare for those who want it" or "Obamacare with public option" are sensible policies that will achieve a consensus and will actually pass.

However, if one's agenda is to destroy the current health care system then MFA is a good outlet for anger.

Can you name any redeeming qualities or contributions that industry makes to actual health care?

How many people could be covered with the premium money profits they use to lobby against health care?

Just for the record my questions are a request not a demand.

That is why drug companies race to develop new drugs. That is why hospitals try to get the latest equipment like PET scanners or f-MRI scanners. That is why your doctor will come and see you in the hospital at 1 AM and stay with you in the ICU until next morning.

Profit motive has created innovative supply chains of physicians and physician groups and management of various conditions adhering to quality of care standards.

Profit motive is what (slightly) improved the postal service - they got newer equipment and got into courier services. Remember how the postal service was before the scanners and auto-sorters and how long it took to get packages from one end of the country to another? What used to take a week now takes only 2-3 days.

profit motive is so great in driving innovation, supply chains and management of various conditions then why are U.S. heath outcomes ranked so poor compared to the other advanced nations of the world despite our nation spending twice per capita what other nations are spending?

We don't even make the top 25

https://ceoworld.biz/2018/02/14/the-top-25-countries-with-the-best-healthcare-systems-the-world-in-2017/

http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian-health-care-information/world-health-organizations-ranking-of-the-worlds-health-systems/

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

with unhealthy lifestyles. Obesity rates are extremely high and fast food consumption is astronomical.

If you want to rail against something, rail against the for-profit fast food industry supersizing everyone.

ethnically/culturally diverse nations in the world are in Africa.

You can take that to the bank.

he said it so it must be right.I loved Obama but I never agreed with his trade policies. I just don't get it.

If one points out alternatives to single payer, one is 'bashing Bernie,' and that means one hates universal health care and progress itself, and are a shill for big pharma and big insurance.

Easier than learning about the topic, anyway.

The majority. Some also allow that people can still buy private ins. on their own, if they want and can afford it. But they can't opt out of the national. It's supplemental to the govt healthcare.

That's my understanding.

I can't think of anyone else.

You may be confusing Universal Health Care with Single Payer.

Single payer is to Universal Health Care as poodle is to canine.

For instance - German Universal Health Care is a hybrid:

Universal care provides some sort of care for everyone. This was one of Obama's stated goals while campaigning. Some were upset to realize after election that he did not mean single payer, but he had never said that. He said "universal." Single-payer is a type of universal care. There is also a two-tier system. There is also a mandate system (Germany). The U S has a private system, but also includes single payer for segments of the population (a sort of hybrid system, although that is not a "type" of insurance system; it's a description).


Types of Plans
In most countries, the government pays for health care provided by private companies. These include the systems in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland. U.S. examples are Medicare, Medicaid, and TRICARE. The United States also provides subsidies to health insurance companies through Obamacare.

When the government both pays for and provides the services, that is socialized medicine. The United Kingdom has this. The United States has it with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the armed forces. (emphasis added: SINGLE PAYER)

Countries often combine universal health coverage with other systems to introduce competition. These include pay as you go, prepay, and private insurance models. These options can lower costs, expand choice, or improve care. (UNIVERSAL HC includes any system that provides widespread hc or coverage.)
(SNIP)

Developed Countries With Universal Health Care

Out of the 33 developed countries, 32 have universal health care. They adopt one of the following three models.

In a single-payer system, the government taxes its citizens to pay for health care. Twelve of the 32 countries have this system. United Kingdom)

Six countries enforce an insurance mandate. (Germany)

The nine remaining countries use a two-tier approach. The government taxes its citizens to pay for basic government health services. Citizens can also opt for better services with supplemental private insurance. (France)

https://www.thebalance.com/universal-health-care-4156211

Australia: two-tier system (like the U S Medicare system)

Canada: Single-payer system. (the govt provides free care to everyone, regardless of ability to pay). Does not incl. vision, dental, drugs, which residents need to buy thru ins.

France: Two-tier system. Covers 75% of its care. Mandatory health ins. system for med. care, drugs. The govt also pays for homeopathy, house care, child care.

Germany: A mandate system. Mandatory health insurance sold by 130 private nonprofits. There is additional mandatory long-term care insurance. Funding comes from payroll taxes. The government pays for most of the health care. It limits the amount of the payments and the number of people each doctor can treat. People can buy more coverage.

Singapore: Singapore's two-tier system is one of the best in the world. Two-thirds is private and one-third public spending. It provides five classes of hospital care. The government manages hospitals that provide low-cost or free care. It sets regulations that control the cost of the entire health care system. People can buy higher levels of deluxe care for a fee. Workers pay 20 percent of their salary to three mandated savings accounts. The employer pays another 16 percent into the account. One account is for housing, insurance, or education investment.

The second account is for retirement savings. The third is for health care.

Switzerland: Mandatory health insurance that covers all residents. Quality of care is one of the best in the world. Coverage is provided by competing private insurance companies. People CAN buy voluntary insurance to access better hospitals, doctors, and amenities. (no dental or vision for adults) The government subsidizes premiums for low-income families. Like Obamacare.

United Kingdom: Single-payer system. All residents receive free care. Private insurance for elective medical procedures is available.

United States: Private system. But it's a mixture of government-run and private insurance. The government pays most of the cost, but also subsidizes private health insurance through Obamacare. One-third of the costs is for administration, not patient care. Sixty percent of citizens get private insurance from their employers. Fifteen percent receive Medicare for those 65 and older. The federal government also funds Medicaid for low-income families and the Children's Health Insurance Program for children. It pays for veterans, Congress, and federal employees. Despite all these, there are 28 million Americans who have no coverage. (a HYBRID type of system, although there is no category of systems called "hybrid&quot

Capiche?

Single payer is a type of universal care/coverage.

You just want to argue. But the facts are the facts. I refuse to go down the rabbit hole with you. Go ahead and continue to argue with everyone. But arguing against hard facts is difficult. Truth and facts are what matter.

There is no such system as a hybrid system. There is, as my first response told you, a two tier system. But the one the majority of the 33 developed countries use is the single payer system. There are some that are a mandate system, like Germany, as well.

...."have it", even though none of those countries actually DO have it.

Please tell me what an ins. cos. is.
Thanks.

early and not because of insurance. The hospital didn't put in his scripts for pain in the folder...he was delayed an hour while I drove back and forth...this was Easter weekend. He went into a full body spasm. The resident covering the surgeon was no help...see how you are in the morning...the man was screaming in pain. I called the nurses hot line my insurance offers...they called an ambulance to take him back to the hospital where he had surgery. The locals didn't go to that hospital. My insurance company has been great. I can only imagine what Medicare for all would be with a Trumpian president...horrible.

hope he's feeling better soon.

It was horrible. It took hour for the pain to recede. The good news is he will recover. He had therapy yesterday and it went well.

I thought I was confused. Thanks for asking the question about the ins. cos.

You won't have enough left to take to the bank.

Or like in most other countries, where they use a hybrid of payers and private plans?

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/universal-health-coverage-eight-countries

Do they also not have their people's interest at heart?

But that's the pitfall when one makes 'perfect' the enemy of getting anything acomplished.

A dragon to slay, decade after decade.

Can you name any redeeming qualities or contributions that industry makes to actual health care?

How many people could be covered with the premium money profits they use to lobby against health care?

Senator Sanders' long-promised simple solution from actually becoming reality.

The point being, if this is so powerful an obstacle, then it's not a simple solution.

Yes, I think that Senator Sanders' "my way or the highway" approach sacrifices more doable, immediate solutions to get more people affordable health care, and that is what "making the perfect (MFA or bust) the enemy of the good (that which will get more health care to more people sooner)" is referring to.

Is that clearer?

You equate private for profit "health" insurance as being "good" by your own aphorism.

The for profit "health" insurance industry is a cancer on actual health care and the primary opponent to Medicare for All and always has been, this is nothing new.

If progressive policies should be adopted only if they weren't opposed by powerful forces, what would our nation look like today?


Is that clearer?

espcially when they are an attempt to derail and go down another rabbit hole.... usually when I've made a point that's uncomfortable.

Again... I don't derail or distract from the discussion at hand easily, and that's frustrating for you, clearly.

Attacking strawmen in an effort to get me on the defensive about something I never said or inferred doesn't work either, but you don't seem to have learned that after many failures on multiple threads. Maybe bullying works on others. Me, not so much. Sorry.

The fish aren't biting. But until the next attempt...

is most certainly a major part of the equation.

The "perfect is the enemy of the good" (your aphorism) the for profit industry "health" industry; is the primary opponent of Medicare for All and they are good only insofar as cancer is good.

That is the discussion and the main point of the OP.

The fish are dying in toxic waters.

Your continued attempts to bait me by misrepresenting my statements just keep failing. You just keep doing the same thing over and over, and are getting more and more frustrated.

Did you find a sale on strawmen?

you speak of strawmen, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Peace to you.

Well, you know.

Peace to you. And your collection of strawmen.

Speaking of fish:

and that you are un-wiling or have no answers to, why is that?

It was just a request.

The OP is crystal clear as to who the preeminent opponents to Medicare for All are and how they're funding their attacks, you don't address that except posing an aphorism about the "perfect."

Any student of history would know that arguments against slavery were for decades before the Civil War posed along the same veins of compromise with the "nefarious."

A threefer!

Also, continuing to "request" something that someone has declined to give you puts the request into "demand" territory, especially when ALL CAPS are deployed. See "argument from silence" in my previous post that you may or may not have read.

And now you're grasping at slavery to use as a red herring? Seriously?



Willfully ignoring this post, I see...

to the contrary and attempts to divert the conversation.

The fight for abolition was against powerful forces opposed to them and your argument is essentially the same as the great compromisers in regards to the for profit "health" insurance industry.

It wasn't a "simple solution" in those days either because "powerful forces were arrayed against them" but that didn't stop the abolitionists.

You moved into "demand" territory several posts back, like you usually do when someone -at least when it's me - posits a difficult observation or question.

But, I will admit that I was wrong when I said - "You actually reached for slavery as an attempt at a red herring?"

You were grasping for a "false equivalence" just as much - in trying to characterize your spectacular mischaracterization (strawman) of my actual statements as somehow being the equivalent supporting the morality of slavery...

no doubt they caused some discomfort but they were only a request as my posts made perfectly clear.

For that matter my questions weren't just aimed at you but anyone else here that can answer them.

I wasn't equating slavery to the for profit "health" insurance industry.

I was rebutting your facile attempt to state that "powerful opposing forces means that the solution is not simple" and thus compromise should be the order of the day.

hoping for a different outcome.

I think those are the attempts that could be described as "facile," and display 'cognitive dissonance."

Peace to you ehrnst.

Do you know the magnitude of their "profit"? you might be surprised.

Blue Cross Blue Shield per the OP

Lower than the corner grocery store, lower than restaurants, lower than any retail or manufacturing business.

that not only has nothing to do with health care but actually takes away from it.

The response of someone who doesn't have the facts to debate the topic as is.

Red Herring - a favorite, isn't it? Up there with "argument from silence."



You're welcome for the kick......

....if they weren't in business patients would have to foot the entire bill instead of a small portion in many cases.

We should all try to understand the basis of insurance rates, actuary charts, statistics, etc. The insurance industry would not seem like such a big, bad, horrible ogre in the world.

in single payer, our premiums won't be used for political lobbying against the interests of patients and premium payers.

A substantial chunk of my paycheck goes to health coverage. It infuriates me that even one cent of that money goes to a lobbying organization like this

Health insurers and the Pharma industry represent some of the most destructive elements in our society.

companies and they in turn are owned by a for profit "health" insurance company.

and ask me not to believe everything I read on the Internet.

HCSC is member owned, and Anthem is a strange hybrid. No, I don't think BCBS systems should be privatized in any way, and I would strongly support legislation de-privatizing them, but the fact is that most of them remain the non-profit health plan providers they began as. Abolishing the entire system and replacing it with non-existent vaporware is a plan only the GOP would welcome as their replacement would be the full-monty for-profit insurance Sanders is supposedly so averse to. The long and short is that he's peddling myths. That's putting it politely, I hope.

about the people anyway?

The NRA is non-profit do you believe they have the welfare of the American people as their first consideration?