Medicare for All

Kamala Harris Just Showed Why Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All Plan Won't Work

Transitioning to a fully government-run system would require eliminating private health insurance for nearly 180 million Americans.

|

Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

In its traditional form, a single-payer health care system would effectively outlaw private health insurance as we know it. The Medicare for All plan backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), for example, would end today's private health insurance market in a period of four years, forcing nearly 180 million Americans off of their existing plans in the process.

To the plan's most ardent backers, this is an objectively positive development. After Sen. Kamala Harris, who supports the Sanders plan, said at a presidential town hall Monday night that she favors eliminating all private health insurance, even for people who like their plans, a policy staffer for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, "Yes, we're going to get rid of the entire health insurance industry. That's a feature, not a bug."

But as Harris appears to have discovered, most people don't see it that way. There is even resistance within her own party. In the 24 hours following her remarks, a number of prominent Democrats distanced themselves from the idea, including Sens. Dick Durbin (Illinois), Tim Kaine (Virginia), and even Harris' fellow senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, with Feinstein saying, "Well, I'm not there."

Harris, it seems, is not quite there anymore either; or if she is, she is also somewhere else. Last night, she gently moderated her position, with a spokesperson telling CNN that she is open to other policy paths, although she continues to support a single-payer plan that would end private health insurance as well.

It is not exactly a walkback, but it is a tacit acknowledgment of the resistance to her initial remarks. She continues to support a plan that would make today's private health insurance plans illegal while forcing most everyone onto a government-run insurance system. But she supports alternatives as well, presumably ideas like creating a government-run insurance plan that would be sold alongside private plans, or allowing more people to buy into the existing Medicare system, or something like it.

In other words, she also supports plans that are not full-fledged single-payer, the entire point of which is to replace all existing insurance with, yes, a single government-run health coverage plan.

What Harris encountered was the obstacle that has bedeviled health care reformers on both the left and the right for decades: Although public satisfaction with the health care system writ large is often fairly low, polls consistently find that a majority of people like their own health insurance plans and doctors, and they recoil from plans that would cause them to lose their existing coverage arrangements.

That dynamic is what helped kill a planned health care overhaul under President Bill Clinton, and it is why President Barack Obama sold the Affordable Care Act on the false promise that it would not cause anyone to lose their existing health insurance coverage or doctor. It is also one of the reasons that the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare failed, and it remains a major impediment to overhauling Medicare. Similarly, recent surveys find that Medicare for All is only popular until people are told that it would eliminate private health insurance.

When it comes to health care, the public really, really, really does not like disruption. But the entire point of single-payer, which is to say the entire point of Sanders-style Medicare for All, is disruption on a massive scale. All of the other problems—the massive increase in federal spending, the administrative complexity, the job loss, and the medical provider reimbursement cuts—are in some sense secondary.

The incredible unpopularity of any plan that openly proposes to upend current coverage for tens of millions of people is a political barrier no one has managed to overcome. That is why Democrats have typically avoided advertising that their plans would do so, and why some are attempting to brand ideas that are not full-fledged single payer as Medicare for All.

Medicare for All is popular as a slogan, but much of its popularity stems from the ambiguity surrounding what, exactly, it means. That ambiguity can persist for a while, but it is harder to sustain when the plan is put front and center in a major presidential campaign. By foregrounding single-payer's disruptive effects at the beginning of her presidential campaign, Harris provided as succinct a demonstration as you are likely to see of why, for the foreseeable future, Sanders-style Medicare for All is all but certain to fail.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

226 responses to “Kamala Harris Just Showed Why Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All Plan Won't Work

  1. Another well thought out plan.

    1. They will have to pass Harriss’ plan to see what is in it.

      1. She’s looking forward to finding out as well.

        1. A tweet will answer all.

      2. What’s your plan, bitch?

        1. To start, we can keep hateful depraved idiots like you as far away from power as possible. Lets first do no harm. We already ruined the healthcare of millions of people and caused untold amounts of harm the last time you idiots decided to “help everyone”. Lets not repeat that.

          1. Doesn’t sound like a plan to me. More like the idiotic ranting of a pickle-brained Hannity addict.

            1. I was told Obama solved our healthcare problems. Are you saying it didn’t? It looks to me like you are just a racist and can’t handle a black President getting credit for anything and are now pretending there is a problem so that a good white Progressive can get the credit for solving it.

              You are advocating the overturnign of Obama’s signature achievement. No way would you ever do that with a white Democratic President. Your doing so here and claiming there is this big problem even though Obama passed a law to solve it is just straight up racism.

              1. Word.

              2. I don’t need to have a plan, to say that your plan sucks, John.

                It’s almost as if only good options are really on the table.

                1. Agreed.

                  That said, I have a plan: let us go back to largely cash-only healthcare, with private insurance available but 100% optional.

                  I’d buy catastrophic coverage for $157 a month like I had just before Obamacare. Now I’m one of the healthy people that is subsidizing one or more unhealthy persons out there.

                  1. My “agreed” was directed at “I don’t need to have a plan to say that your plan sucks, John.” written by Incomprehensible Bitching.

              3. I was told Trump would.

            2. My plan is to help the poor. I posted it below. If the stated goal is the help the poor, then let’s directly help the poor: cover the insurance premiums for the poor! This would be a barest fraction of the cost of a full blown single player socialist system. It keeps what little market mechanisms we have in place. It gives the poor agency to choose their own plans. We do it for food with food stamps, why cant’ we do it for health insurance with health insurance stamps?

              I don’t understand the obsession with government having to pay for everything for everyone. If the stated problem is to help the poor, then address that problem without dragging in a full blow socialist ideology along with it.

              1. Because helping the poor is only the stated problem, the excuse – socialism is the goal

              2. Why fire a rocket, when you can nuke, son?

              3. Because if we only helped the poor, it would mean that there are still rich people who can get better things, and the goal sent to help poor people, but to bring everyone down to their level.

              4. Just helping the poor and leaving everything else in place would involve tax increases that Democrats know will not fly. Only by rearranging the entire system can they claim to reduce overall costs and effectively avoid an instantaneous cost increase to all consumers.

              5. Just helping the poor and leaving everything else in place would involve tax increases that Democrats know will not fly. Only by rearranging the entire system can they claim to reduce overall costs and effectively avoid an instantaneous cost increase to all consumers.

              6. Brandybuck, your ideas are good, but they assume the real goal is to fix the healthcare system. In reality, the left’s goal is power. Where does one go when the government determines if you get treatment? See how that works?

              7. “I don’t understand the obsession with government having to pay for everything for everyone. ”

                It’s not so mysterious, Think of all the trouble one goes to finding the right plan for yourself. You have to study medicine to understand what kind of coverage you want to buy, where your medical vulnerabilities lie etc, and also study up on insurance, an area whose documents make computer EULA agreements look like comic books. Shopping for the right medical insurance policy must rank as one of the most tedious experiences the free market has to offer. A government run policy lets us avoid that if we wish, and devote our precious time and energy to more satisfying ends.

                1. Sitting around making spreadsheets is a highly erotic experience to libertarians.

                2. Like dying of something easily treated, because the government decides it’s the cheaper option.

                  Noticed that under the ACA, they’ve started discouraging routine PSA tests? And this about the time that studies have confirmed they save lives!

                  But they save lives that cost SS money, after the people in question have stopped paying much in the way of taxes, so PSA tests are now discouraged.

                  That’s the sort of decisions a government run health care system makes. It makes its medical decisions based on the best interests of the government, not the people.

                  1. “Like dying of something easily treated, because the government decides it’s the cheaper option.”

                    You can always seek alternative treatments if your government plan isn’t satisfactory. In fact this is also true if you are satisfied with the service you are now receiving.

                3. Re: “devote our precious time and energy to more satisfying ends”

                  Yes, like coming up with a plan to leave the country to avoid the slow, inexorable slide into socialism. There are plenty of countries or cities that rank higher on the economic freedom index.

        2. So the fallback now is, something must be done, this is something?

        3. Cash for all minor medical stuff.

          Catastrophic health insurance for major medical stuff.

          Lower prices for medical care, lower health insurance premiums, and lower taxes.

          Win-win-win

          1. You forgot deregulate the AMA, increase accredited medical training, increase allowable scope of procedures nurses can handle, reduce FDA regulatory hurdles, end unscientific tort claims, etc.

            1. What does “deregulate the AMA” mean?

              1. it means stripping the organization of the ability to control the number of doctors who make it through the pipeline. Same thing as the licensing requirements for a host of jobs.

                1. That’s true, but that’s not generally what “deregulate” means to most people. My first thought was that JesseAz believes that the AMA is constrained by onerous Federal regs, and should be unshackled so that it can do … something or other that it can’t do now.

              2. It always shocks me when people dont know the basics of how our system works. Look at medical school accreditation rates before diving into healthcare system rates ..

                Thanks ware for informing enemy.

            2. Great stuff that’s never discussed.

            3. @JesseAz|1.30.19 @ 4:45PM

              Are you just basically repeating what John noted a few comments down the line?

              Holy hell, look out for this one everyone!

            4. “You forgot deregulate the AMA, increase accredited medical training, increase allowable scope of procedures nurses can handle, reduce FDA regulatory hurdles, end unscientific tort claims, etc”

              Why not give a license to practice medicine to every student who graduates from high school, regardless of merit.

              1. Don’t be a retard. Doctors are required to waste their time on tons of things an RN, or even a regular nurse, are perfectly qualified to deal with.

                Think about it this way: Removing the necessecity for a SINGLE guy to know EVERY nuance of how a car is put together, and putting it into the hands of a ton of people with a fraction of the training, in specific areas, is what enabled us to vastly increase the productivity of manufacturing things.

                Doctors/nurses still work on the old craftsman system more or less, at least in terms of what they’re allowed to do legally. Allowing and RN to kick down antibiotics for obvious things would save tens or hundreds of billions a year. Allowing nurses to do the same for even more obvious things would do the same.

                1. vek,

                  Your post deserves a response. Doctors are indeed required to waste a lot of their time – on clerical work mandated by the government.

                  The rest of your statement isn’t even wrong. The hyper-specialist technician model might work for cars, but not people. As is the case for complicated things the answer seems really simple when you don’t understand what you’re dealing with.

                  I am one of those specialists that you refer to in your post and I can tell you that I spend quite a bit of time and your money correcting what non-trained “providers” do. I could go on and on about this, but the unfortunate truth is that training physicians is an expensive, time consuming and not currently replaceable construct.

            5. JesseAz,

              “You forgot deregulate the AMA, increase accredited medical training, increase allowable scope of procedures nurses can handle, reduce FDA regulatory hurdles, end unscientific tort claims, etc”

              1. the AMA doesn’t control medical training.
              2. accredited medical training is VERY rigorous and VERY expensive – money will come from?
              3. if you increase RN scope, you must train them – we already have a process for that and it is called an MD, also money
              4. the FDA is a well meaning and wildly risk averse place – how to change that culture when they have literally no upside to change
              5. Tort claims, well I will agree with you there.

              1. @PRusselin regards to#3: heard of a NP? Isn’t that an RN who has received more training to perform more tasks? Why yes it is. I know the kind of doctor you are, your the kind that thinks your shit doesn’t stink, but the nurses are constantly having to clean up your messes. You probably are the kind that chew them out to when they call you to clarify an order you fucked up. I dealt with doctors like you, and guess what, nobody but you are impressed.

          2. How have subsidies currently in place helped to lower the costs of medical care and education?

        4. What’s your plan, bitch

          My plan is to do exactly what Vermont and/or California wanted to do…enact a single payer and fucking bankrupt the nation.

          Harris is a math illiterate.

          Kill yourself assclown.

          1. Throw in NY state. Single payer passes the lower house a few years ago. Dead letter ever since it was determined to cost as much as the entire state budget.

            1. Cali’s was pegged at almost 3 times more than it’s budget.

              1. Someone hasn’t told Newsom.

              2. It’s a great way to drive out the healthy and the net taxpayers so that Calif. is only full of 99% sick and poor and 1% of ultra-rich to pay for everything.

        5. It sure would suck if Obama colluded with the pharmaceutical and insurance companies to write his signature law, ensuring that it didn’t actually help people.

          Oh wait…

        6. “”What’s your plan, bitch?”‘

          Guy without a plan calling out a guy without a plan?

        7. No “plan” as that suggests central planning. Let the friggin market work like it does for everything else. Supplement the market with private charity.

        8. No “plan” as that suggests central planning. Let the friggin market work like it does for everything else. Supplement the market with private charity.

        9. Ah, the new civility raises its ugly head once again. Thank you, resident liberal

        10. Tony you’ve already stated your belief that freedom is forcing others to provide you free shit. Nobody cares what you think on any economic topic.

    2. Do you have any evidence to support that, or is it just your feelings?

    3. Only in America could the world’s most inefficient health care system be replaced by one even more so.

      1. Can you support the assertion that America’s health care system is the world’s most inefficient? Worse than most of Africa’s South America, South Central Asia etc? And what rubric do you measure efficiency using? Are we really less efficient than Europe considering we have that our M&M is usually similar if not superior to theirs in almost every category? Or that our wait times for elective surgery, specialist etc actually is better?

        1. Well usually the best measure of efficiency in medical stuff is cost/outcome.

          Our cost is MASSIVELY higher than everywhere else. Outcomes are tough to measure and can vary. But whatever measure you pick, they are at best a little better than most – and usually nearer the back end of the ‘rich country’ peloton

          So no – we are not efficient

          1. The secret here is that most of that is driven by lifestyle differences between different cultures. For instance, in the Mediterranean, most people are on the Mediterranean diet. I know it’s hard to believe, but it’s true!

            The secret within the secret is that a lot of the remainder is due to reporting differences. For instance, you can dramatically lower infant mortality, and thus increase reported longevity, just by how you decide whether an infant was stillborn or died an infant.

            The secret within the secret, within the secret, the secret that’s so secret a lot of people would die rather than notice it, is that demographics drives a lot of this, too. A lot of the problems with US healthcare are driven by the fact that our population is, ahem, “diverse”. But you’re not supposed to notice that.

            Anyway, our outcomes are pretty darned good once you adjust for the health of the people entering the system. We just need more preventative medicine, and a better lifestyle.

            1. ” We just need more preventative medicine, and a better lifestyle.”

              Fewer “inner city” folks too. This is the main reason why we dislike to idea of socialized health insurance. Normal upstanding white people forced to pay the medical bills for a population of free loading, melon munching, dice throwing, eye popping, pipe hitting nogoodniks.

              1. Mtrueman have you ever met a strawman that you wouldn’t argue? Rural America, which is overwhelmingly white, has the poorest medical coverage and they also tend to have a harder time getting coverage because a lot of them are self employed or make below the national median income, even below the national average.

  2. It would also require making it illegal to purchase your own healthcare. If it is still legal to purchase your own health care, then it would be nearly impossible to enforce any ban on health insurance. The only way you could would be to make it illegal to pay the medical costs of another. Anything short of that and people would be able to get around the insurance ban.

    What is never mentioned is that “single payer” means just that; single payer. That means the government and only the government pays for healthcare.

    1. I don’t see why. Britain has their single-payer NHS, yet private health insurance, often employer paid, still exists and is a common employee benefit in professional firms.

      1. Yes, but that’s not what Harris wants. She wants an end to the private insurance market in favor of a government-run single payer system.

      2. The Bernie and Harris plans explicitly outlaw private or tiered insurance.

      3. But Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard were held in the hospital like a prison until they died, even though their families had raised enough money to take them elsewhere for treatment.

        They were held prisoners, against their families’ desire to get them better treatment, because the healthcare system was run by a government that didn’t want money wasted on that treatment. Not even if it was somebody else’s money.

        The Democrats want to import that principle, too, not just public funding. In fact, the public funding is important to them mostly because it gives them the leverage to take over control of the health care itself: He who pays the piper calls the tune, and they want to call the tune.

  3. In other words, she really wants total power, but she’ll take as much as she can get.

    1. She doesn’t care. She’s on the Senate Healthcare Plan.

      1. That raises a good point.

        Whatever solution is forced on the American people must also apply to all the politicians.

  4. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted, “Yes, we’re going to get rid of the entire health insurance industry. That’s a feature, not a bug.”

    I sure hope that people give up on taking her seriously sooner rather than later.

    1. People need to take her seriously. She represents a very negative trend, and it should not just be ignored or pushed aside. It should be confronted openly.

      1. Yes they should take her seriously. She is popular among a lot of Democratic voters. The media and the party don’t want her taken seriously because she espouses views that are not popular with the broarder public and embarass the party. But the fact remains those views are popular with Democratic voters and the Party shouldn’t be allowed to pretend otherwise.

        1. She is popular among a lot of Democratic voters.

          These are the people I wish would stop taking her seriously.

          1. You and me both. But the fact is that they do. And the only way to change that is to take her seriously and confront her ideas.

            1. See my comment below.

              1. Stop taking her seriously the moment the Democratic Party repudiates her views out of embarassment.

            2. As a Republican member of a household of Democrats — I can honestly tell you, “confronting her ideas” will have no impact on the Democrats mind.

              I’ve concluded that Democrats don’t relate to logic or reason – they relate entirely to fitting in with a group/mob/media and their claim to groups claim to “winning” on nothing short of team affiliation. Their claimed logic/reason is nothing but unicorns, rainbows and fairy tales.

      2. It should be confronted openly.

        Indeed. After which people should stop taking her seriously.

    2. We have identified the kulak class AOC wants to liquidate.

      1. Well, we’ve identified one of them.

        The problem for the Ds/progressives that AOC presents is that she blows up their strategy of incrementalism. It’s been working for a century, but along comes this dumb, pretty, enthusiastic girl who drops the veil on all of them. Combined with Trump stealing their traditional platform, it leaves them little wiggle room to get her under control.
        I’m enjoying the spectacle, but I’m a little scared too.

        1. What’s with this “pretty” stuff Kemosabe?

          To me she looks like RBG crossed with the Alien (those teeth!).

          1. The best way I heard it described is “There’s a difference between beach hot, office hot, and Congress hot.”

        2. I’m more than a little scared. The Republicans had a window to stop a lot of the Democratic party’s aspirations for this country, and they blew it. By all appearances deliberately.

          We don’t seem to have a functioning two party system in America at the moment, more of a one and a half party system.

    3. One thing I admire about AOC is that she is willing to spend her political capital immediately and up front. That is what politicians should do. The alternative is playing footsie with the powers that be and paying your dues and making a career out of merely ‘being’ in office.

      1. > The alternative is playing footsie with the powers that be and paying your dues and making a career out of merely ‘being’ in office.

        She’ll embrace that alternative sometime soon. If not, the Democrats will primary her. She only got 13% of the vote because Crowley and his voters were lazy. They won’t make that mistake again if the DNC puts up a Crowley clone.

  5. If the government plan gives people what they want, why not just let it out-compete private insurance? Why outlaw it? It’s not like they’d let people opt out of the taxes that fund it, and if some people stayed on private insurance, it would actually reduce the price tag for the government option.

    1. They wanted to try that under Obamacare. That was the “public option”. And even the 09 Democratic Congress wouldn’t go for it. When the Democrats had a huge majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate and The Light Giver brand new to the White House, they still couldn’t pass a public option as part of Obamacare. I find it hard to believe that they could ever pass a public option and the elimination of all private insurance.

      1. For what it’s worth, the House bill included a public option. Whip counts suggested that at most 45 Senators were on board with that.

    2. But then they wouldn’t have control.
      Next step, make it illegal to go overseas to see a doctor.
      Total and complete control over your life. Not just how you live your life, but whether or not you actually get to live.

    3. They argue that any competition raises costs too much for them to economical.

    4. Because government-run anything is always less efficient and more corrupt than private-run everything.

      Private businesses can literally go out of business for inefficiency and corruption. Government businesses cannot.

      It’s a nice theory, having government-run insurance or even health care. But like everything else government is supposed to be able to handle, it only works if government businesses are actually run like businesses, with the opportunity of bankruptcy for inefficiency or corruption. It only works if politicians keep their hands out of the till.

      Therein lies the lie of government doing anything competently or efficiently.

    5. Ultimately that’s where I think govt coverage will end up. They will consolidate Medicare, Medicaid, VA, govt employees, etc into one pool. Create a provider network that looks a bit like a Kaiser HMO – and ultimately open that up to anyone and allow anyone inside that network to opt out (with no payments out of network).

      It’s basically the UK model. Not a great model for healthcare delivery – but the only model that also doesn’t require an adult conversation about what we want the scope of healthcare to look like. It’s a pure – here it is, take it or leave it thing. And because it CAN control costs/spending, it ends up cherry-picking a ton of the young healthy’s who don’t utilize anything and just want CHEAP.

      1. Yes, because all those programs are known for their quality, and doctors are lining up to use them.

        1. It’s not about ‘quality’. It’s about access and price. You can’t have all three – quality, access, price. You can only have two. The govt coverage will do the access and price stuff. You want ‘quality’ – YOU pay.

          1. And BTW – every single research hospital that’s affiliated with a public university will end up in the govt network. So it ain’t gonna be some third-world level. There’s probably a ton of doctors – who would like to combine research with some clinical

            1. And those research hospitals are not centrally located or even located where a lot of Americans can utilize them. So you want to destroy my coverage and then tell me to get the same quality bi have to pay an additional amount, on top of the increased taxes I will have to pay for the government ran system. Go fuck yourself.

    6. Right now Medicare pays 95% cost of care and Medicaid lower. Collections is outsourced to the FBI and IRS. Employers bear the costs of collection as well. How can private plans compete?

  6. “Kamala Harris Just Showed Why Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Plan Won’t Work”

    Sure it will work, it will work to create one party rule in the US. Which is all the socialist want.

  7. She’s totally in favor of Medicare For All, which is the only answer for solving the supposed healthcare crisis. But she’s still open to discussing all other ideas for improving healthcare as well.

    Carl Sagan said it’s good to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

    1. The good news is that Harriss’ brains falling out won’t create a very big mess.

      1. Willie Brown fucked dated her brains out years ago.

  8. >>>”Yes, we’re going to get rid of the entire health insurance industry.”

    so cute with the naivete.

  9. In its traditional form, a single-payer health care system would effectively outlaw private health insurance as we know it.

    And the media continues the lie that Trump wants to be a tyrant when stupid chicks like Kamala “Suicide Bomber” Harris want to be.

  10. Although public satisfaction with the health care system writ large is often fairly low, polls consistently find that a majority of people like their own health insurance plans and doctors, and they recoil from plans that would cause them to lose their existing coverage arrangements.

    So, what’s the reason for that? This is one of the big problems with polling is, “Do you like X” rarely covers any meaningful area of thought. Not the least of which is the problem that X is rarely defined in the poll. So really you’re just asking whether a certain phrase sounds good to them without much understanding of what that term generally means to people.

    My guess? People are of the firm belief that our system is bad, but they are a lucky one. It’s a mental state where every person believes they are above average, due to how insurance issues are portrayed in the culture at large.

    1. The reason for that is that people feel an obligation to want a system that helps everyone. People generally like their healthcare and health insurance but the media has convinced them that the system is horrible and doing all of this harm. So people rationally conclude that even though they like their healthcare the system as a whole is broken and unjust and must change.

      I don’t think the people are being irrational here. I think the Democrats and the media are just that effective at lying and creating the false impression that the majority of the people in this country can’t get healthcare and our current system is some grave injustice.

      1. Not only the lie that they can’t get health care, but that people are dying every day because of it.

    2. It’s a mental state where every person believes they are above average, due to how insurance issues are portrayed in the culture at large.

      You mean like how Congress has a 20% approval rating but all the same people keep getting elected?

      1. There is nothing inconsistent about hating Congress as a whole and liking your Congressman or at least considering them better than whatever alternative is being put up by the other party.

        1. Congress sucks : my representatives are great :: health insurance sucks : my insurance plan is great

          1. Again, all of that can be true. Just because something sucks in the aggregate does not mean that certain parts of it cannot be good.

            1. But the oddness comes from how a Congressman acts. You might like your Congressman, but they have impact on my life by how they vote. Me taking issue with them can be reasonable.

              Health Insurance is solely a personal issue. Is it treating me well or not. And so my opinion of your health insurance is not meaningful, it’s not my business.

              This really brings up more questions though. How are people perceiving this and how are they thinking about it? What exact issues do they have. Because if most people are satisfied then it actually does not make sense in this case.

              1. Voting is revealed preference over stated preference. I might think that my Congressman sucks in every way but one. But if that one way, say gun rights or RACISM or whatever your partisan taste, is the most important thing to me and the other side does suck on that issue, I am going to vote for him even though I think he sucks.

                1. It’s a pity we can’t have a system where you elect multiple representatives, each of whom is only allowed to vote on a particular range of topics. So that the voters could construct their ideal representative out of several real life candidates who are good on different particular issues and sucky on the rest.

    3. So, what’s the reason for that?

      Because most people work for a big employer who pays most of the expenses, has a staff of employees to negotiate the terms of provider networks/contracts, and so the only thing they have to do is pick-a-plan once a year. And right now we are in a low unemployment environment so not a lot of folks who have been tossed into oblivion to try to make their own way.

      That world of blissfully oblivious someone-else-pays will end. But it obviously polls well until it does end.

      1. Replace big business with government and the outcome is the same. Do you ever do any self reflection? oOr is it just knee jerk group think, follow the mob mentality for you?

        1. You really are an idiot aren’t you. Employees who work for big companies don’t know SHIT about any of this. Which is why when they are polled during the growth part of the cycle their responses are based on ignorance and whatever sounds good. Might as well ask your dog about what color to paint the garage. Make them unemployed – so they have to go on COBRA – which can then run out and all of sudden they are required to sprint up a learning curve and they quickly learn to hate everything about our current system. That’s all just reality.

          Re POLITICS

          Right now Dems are just doing prep work for all this single-payer stuff – seeing what sticks and what doesn’t. When the next recession hits, they will win. Period. Because reality will align with what they are doing – which is actual policy work.

          Reps have nothing to offer and aren’t thinking about anything either. They proved that with We’ll replace Obamacare with well apparently Obamacare. Oh and cosmetic surgery works wonders. WTF?? Might as well ask the dog to be in charge of painting the garage.

          1. They aren’t doing any ground work, they’ve passed universal coverage in multiple, wealthy, Democratic ran states and have had to abandon it every single time.
            As for people not understanding, you make a rather large assumption, do you have data to back that up? I thought not. You never argue with facts but only make unsupported assumptions that rarely have even a passing correlation to reality and you have the Moxy to accuse others of being idiots. But you are incapable of thinking for yourself. You just March out partisan talking points. You rely on your well rehearsed tropes rather than offer anything original or unique. You are an automation who has been programmed to view those whom disagree with you with disdain. Unfortunately, for you, it is obvious to the rest of us that you lack self awareness and true intellectual ability. You are the poster child for someone with a degree but no understanding, a product of the participation trophy generation. I doubt you ever challenged your professors, but rather coughed up the talking points with gusto upon command. You are a sycophant, with no thoughts of your own.

    4. My favorite polling question has to be: “Has X event changed your opinion of Politician Y?”, without first determining what my opinion of Politician Y was in the first place.

  11. Medicare for All is popular as a slogan

    Until one looks at the details.

    It is much like the GOP and their “Pro-Life” anti-abortion slogan

    “Don’t worry ladies – we know what’s best for you. And if you get raped learn to love the little bugger!”

    1. Or the Left’s “pro-choice” slogan, in which the only thing they are really for choosing is whether to kill another human, subsidized by the taxpayer.

    2. Hey dumb fuck. Virtually every pro life bill has a rape exemption.

      1. So the proclaimed “killing babies” is okay if someone got rapped? Frankly — The GOP is on the wrong side of the argument on this issue. Anyone who claims removing a 21-week fertile egg (Roe v Wade) is “killing babies” is living in the land of unicorns and butterflies.

        And actually; even though the DNC to GOP platform is specific on issue stance the DNC to GOP voting population is pretty spread across the lines on this issue. Just about as many Democrats are against abortion as Republicans are for leaving Roe v Wade alone.

        1. Asshole, it isn’t a fertilized egg, it is at least a developing fetus, and considering the earliest premature delivery to survive was 21 weeks and 5 days, you obviously don’t know anything about gestational medicine. Try pandering your pseudoscientific nonsense somewhere else.

          1. But who pays for the health care?

            1. Exactly — “The earliest” to Survive was used in Roe v Wade yet it is the CHAMPIONSHIP record of any premature birth to actually survive and that was with all the medical technology thrown at it. It was by all means an experimental test-tube baby that hugely lucked out.

              Instead of using record setting survival weeks — How about whats really observed.

              — At 23-Weeks premature birth survival rate is 15% the other 85% are dead.
              — At 26-Weeks premature births are 80% likely to have a disability or retardation.

              Roe v Wade ruling actually leans FAR CONSERVATIVELY on the market of a living person. As in Record Setting. With an 80% chance of permanent defect at 26-weeks; that still cannot be claimed to be a “functional human being”. That would probably be about as functional as a pet.

              The U.S. Constitution doesn’t grant individual life rights to fetuses and most likely due to their location of being INSIDE a completely functional human being. I hear people getting shot for breaking into houses and get away with it because that was their property. We’re talking about someones BODY here.. even more personal than a house.

              If Pro-Life advocates cannot acknowledge that a persons body is very personal even to the point of ending invading life then where’s the justification for shooting a rapist?? The rapist doesn’t have to die, right? The Woman should just take being raped because shooting the rapist is murder. This is exactly the same STANCE.

        2. And yet, somehow in multiple states the Democratic party has evolved from “safe, legal, and rare” to “elective abortion right up to the moment of birth”.

    3. up to, and including, live birth abortion?

  12. I’LL FEATURE YOUR BUG!

    1. In Mother Russia, the bugs feature YOU!

  13. Look, Kamala Harris’ healthcare plan might not be exactly what we Koch / Reason libertarians want. But if she’s the best candidate to take back the Presidency from the Russian puppet white nationalist Handmaid’s Tale party, should we really be focusing on such minor points of disagreement?

    1. Wipe your chin…

    2. Still on that Islamo-hatred are you?

    3. Say goodnight, Gracie!

  14. If the goal is to help the poor under a welfare-like system, then the solution is obvious. Government pays for the insurance premiums of the poor.

    We do this for food. It’s called food stamps. It’s not the greatest system in the world, but it’s a hell of a lot better than nationalizing all the grocery stores!

    A “insurance premium stamps” system would not be perfect either. But it keeps most of the market system in place, gets the government out of running things, and directly addresses the STATED PROBLEM! And it would be a tiny fraction of the cost of single payer health care system.

    No, it doesn’t address the issue of pre-existing conditions. But that’s a separate issue. There are ways to solve that too without full blown socialism. And yes, single payer is socialism.

    But people like Harris don’t want to help the poor. That’s not their goal. They just want to promise free shit for all. Because they think that’s what will get them elected. Politicians don’t care about solving problems they only care about getting elected. Their only skill in life is making other think that they care about solving problems.

    Directly address the stated issue of helping the poor! Anything else is just poltiticians speaking out their asses.

    1. A “insurance premium stamps” system would not be perfect either. But it keeps most of the market system in place, gets the government out of running things, and directly addresses the STATED PROBLEM!

      Obamacare already does this by providing subsidies for health insurance plans, based on your income. And it’s not been an utter failure at reducing the cost of healthcare, which is the real issue.

      Not access for the poor. Cost. The poor have EMTALA, Obamacare, and Medicaid. Meanwhile, the middle class got cornholed and costs continue their exponential rise.

      1. Insurance isn’t care. To the extent that it has gotten people to buy more insurance that has not resulted in medical care costs going down. In fact it has raised the cost fo care. Once people buy insurance, they have an incentive to use it and seek care where they would not have had before.

        The primary lie behind Obamacare was the claim that people getting insurance and having access to more care would cause them to need less medical care and lower medical costs over the long term. I call it the “preventative care” unicorn. And that just isn’t the case. If preventative care was effective enough to save money over the long term and in the aggregate, insurance companies would be falling all over themselves to not just pay for it for their customers but require their customers to seek it. Insurance companies do no such thing because they have long ago figured out that there are very few areas of preventative care that actually save money.

        So the increase in insurance coverage did nothing but raise the demand for health care and along with it the prices.

        1. “”Insurance isn’t care.””

          Understanding this would be the first step to building a better system.

          When the ACA was passed, I was laughing at people telling me that it would provider care for people. I said it provided people with premiums, co-pays, and deductibles.

        2. Excellent comment.

          The preventive care stuff fails for a very different reason though. Our system is geared entirely around annual enrollments and 1-year policies. There IS no long-term. This actually includes our govt systems as well as the employer and individual stuff. And this short-term view is unique to the US.

          Preventive care does not have a 1 year payback. And especially when the pool of people whose healthcare is being covered is split into a few million different sub-pools most of which are simply trying to cherry-pick already-healthy people from other pools.

          Preventive care has a huge payback – long-term and in aggregate. But gotta get out of the mindset that we currently have.

          1. Just to give an example. Medicare has been around for 50 years. We know how many retirees we will have to cover this year next year 50 years from now. Which means we know how many preventive GP-types who deal with issues unique to the elderly (geriatricians) we will need. The aging of the boomers was not some surprise.

            What did we do about that for 50 years? Nothing. We have fewer geriatricians than Denmark (popn 6 million). And the number is going down quickly. We only have enough geriatricians to perform one function in the US – to be the medical decider for dementia/hospice patients. The one group that no longer needs preventive care.

            Every other country on Earth that chose to cover its elderly healthcare understood that you save money – LOTS of money – for that group – by:
            a)providing access to preventive care to everyone in middle age so they age healthily and have fewer medical needs and
            b)transition people from GP’s to geriatricians when multiple things first start happening so that the elderly themselves can prioritize those medical/recovery things that enhance the quality of the other parts of their life. Not just to go from specialist to specialist which increasingly becomes their life.

            1. If you want to enable long term preventative care, you need to disentangle insurance from employers, so that people don’t have to change insurers as their employment changes.

              Get rid of the requirement that you get in-state insurance, make the insurance market genuinely national.

              Then give insurance purchased anywhere the same tax status as insurance gotten through your employer.

              That way people could join large national groups that they could stay with through their lives, in the same risk pool. I might get my health insurance through the NRA, somebody else through the DNC or the Knights of Columbus. And my employer just pays me in this thing called “money”, which is as easy for small businesses as large.

              Once people can stay with the same insurer through their lives, regardless of moves or employment changes, the insurers have the incentives to push preventative care. It also largely solves the problem of preexisting conditions and interruptions in coverage, because affinity groups have more internal motive to support people through interruptions, and more capacity to recoup those costs afterwards.

              This is basically what the GOP should have done over the two years they had control of Congress and the White house. But they didn’t, because they don’t actually care about free markets.

              1. If there was money to be made by actually solving the problem (v just cherry-picking the healthy or scamming the sick), then someone would have made sure their lobbyist got that done by now. Or just done it and be an example.

                Affinity groups did work when there was little/no medical intervention but they weren’t motivated by profit even then and with a strong common idea about death. They could do so today if they wanted to. Sec310 of Medicare allows for a religious exemption IF they actually take care of their own elderly and sick and dying and poor rather than foist them on everyone else via govt. Only the Amish have done so. Not Christian Science or any others.

                Most hospitals in the US were built by religious denominations. They even (outside the South) opened their doors to all residents of the community when space was available. They presume to share ideas about what death means. Most have offered insurance pools for this or that. The basis for a free market solution has always been there.

                But if only the Amish can understand what that really means, there is no free market solution for the rest of us in Mammon. Hayek understood (even before Medicare) that free market doesn’t actually work re healthcare.

                1. JFree|1.31.19 @ 11:56AM|#
                  “If there was money to be made by actually solving the problem (v just cherry-picking the healthy or scamming the sick), then someone would have made sure their lobbyist got that done by now. Or just done it and be an example.”
                  Unless the other lobbyists were more connected. You knew that, and in typical lefty fashion, posted bullshit in the hopes others were as stupid as you.

                  “Affinity groups did work when there was little/no medical intervention but they weren’t motivated by profit even then and with a strong common idea about death….”
                  Woosh!
                  Given your constant dishonesty, I’m gonna guess you missed the point on purpose.

                  “Most hospitals in the US were built by religious denominations. They even (outside the South) opened their doors to all residents of the community when space was available. They presume to share ideas about what death means. Most have offered insurance pools for this or that. The basis for a free market solution has always been there.”
                  Until the gov’t screwed the pooch post WWII. Again, try honesty once, if you know what that is.

                  “But if only the Amish can understand what that really means, there is no free market solution for the rest of us in Mammon. Hayek understood (even before Medicare) that free market doesn’t actually work re healthcare.”
                  Bullshit claims.
                  Fuck off, slaver.

      2. “”Obamacare already does this by providing subsidies for health insurance plans, based on your income.””

        If that’s all it did, it would not be so bad. But that’s just a tiny part of it.

        1. Yes. The worst part of Obamacare was the coverage mandates. That screwed everyone. The coverage mandates were just payoffs to various groups who wanted other people to pay for their coverage but since it applied to so many groups it wound up screwing everyone. Yeah, it is great that I can now get insurance that covers my kid’s mental health problems or my wife’s birth control. Wonderful from my perspective that my rates are now lower since some single widow with no kids and no need for either is forced to buy the coverage and become part of the risk pool. That is great until I realize that I am also paying for and part of the risk pool for a bunch of shit I don’t want but other people do. So, in the end everyone ends up worse off.

          1. The EHB were taken from state regulations for the group market.

            1. They were taken from the two most heavily regulated states you mean. The ones with the worst non group markets.

            2. why does the government decide what coverage I need? You want to lower prices, allow people to buy insurance a la carte. New York requires coverage for acupuncture (totally debunked scientifically), eastern Asian folk medicine (debunked), holistic medicine (likewise debunked) chiropractic care (only useful in very limited circumstances) etc. This drives the cost through the roof for scientifically questionable at best, practices. And fucks everyone except idiots who believe in this bullshit.

          2. “Everyone ends up worse off”? Does that include people with mental health issues?

            1. Yes. Sure they are getting cheaper coverage for that but they are then paying for coverage they don’t need. Are there some people better off? A few yes. But they are the exception.

              1. Either “some people are better off” or “everyone ends up worse off”. Both cannot be true.

            2. Yes, because in order to get the extra coverage for mental health, I also have to buy coverage for birth control (my wife’s tubes are tied and my daughter is 7), and pay so that your kid can be on your insurance until he is 26, my oldest is only 14, and pay for some elderly person’s, I never met before, assisted living stay etc. So for one thing I needed I am paying out the ass for shit I don’t need.

          3. The health care costs of a child are greater than the cost of birth control. No birth control means more babies. Therefore the insurance that doesn’t cover birth control should be more expensive than the insurance that does.

            I have no problem with no birth control plans as long as the people who choose them pay for the costs of their choice. The problem is that most people who want no birth control plans think they should be saving money.

            1. Except that paying for birth control doesn’t imply that no babies get born, it just implies control over their getting born.

              Your reasoning applies to sterilization, but not to anything reversible.

              And, yeah, I think I’d be saving money if my insurance didn’t have to cover birth control; I’m sterile from cancer treatment. Still paying for the birth control coverage, though.

            2. No birth control means more babies? Because birth control is the only method to prevent pregnancy? Hmmmm condoms and diaphragms, or even abstinence would accomplish the same thing without forcing me to pay for it.

      3. Most of the poor now have access to Medicaid, but not all. 14 states, including Texas and Florida, have not expanded Medicaid yet.

        1. And that is bad. Very bad.

          Pay for your own medical care or get into a health insurance plan that is voluntary.

  15. Blue state after blue state looks into setting up a government-run health insurance plan, and they all die out once the cost analysis comes in (including Harris’ own state of California). What’s the brilliant solution? “It won’t work on a small scale, but it will if we take it nationwide!”

    1. “It won’t work on a small scale, but it will if we take it nationwide!”

      ^THIS IS WHAT LEFTISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE^

      1. And yet they still point to tiny countries like Finland as proof it will work on a massive scale in the US, despite not working on a small scale in individual states that are actually much larger than Finland. (Because of the immense differences in demographics between the two countries).

        It’s not an excuse, it’s excuse making.They don’t believe this, it’s just the first excuse that pops into their head. What they really believe, truly believe, is that their socialism will work if only they try it just one more time. They’ll get it right this time.

    2. If there’s nothing better anywhere else, we automatically win!

    3. What the Left is hawking is total government dependency. History has shown (repeatedly) once the government controls basic functions, such as healthcare, it is inevitable they will go down the road to Fascism. Hyack’s “The Road to Serfdom” being require reading for those who can not see this clearly.

  16. Single payer is a buzzword ignorant people like to say they support because based Bernie said it and that must make it good right? Then someone explains what single payer actually means and they drop their position entirely.

    1. Somehow, government run monopsony is not as friendly sounding.

    2. Also, AOC really messed up on that tweet. She’s trying to be hip and with it on internet lingo, but that meme isn’t positive in any capacity. It’s been a common expression for decades, but came into mainstream prominence as a result of TORtanic and Bioware’s pathetic excuses to justify how horribly made their game was.

    3. Single payer is a buzzword they invented when they realized that “socialized medicine” was not selling among the proles.

  17. “we’re going to get rid of the entire health insurance industry.”

    “And then we’re going to eliminate the pharmaceutical industry. Then, the energy industry! YEEEEAAAH!!!”

  18. “Although public satisfaction with the health care system writ large is often fairly low, polls consistently find that a majority of people like their own health insurance plans and doctors”

    Up until something unforeseen happens and they can’t pay their monthly premiums then government hand outs are just fine. The smart thing to do is to pass legislation to allow for the legalization to self-medicate, that would take care of more than just the health care problems in country. That would be to libertarian and our government just won’t have any of that bullshit!

    1. The biggest insanity of all of this is that people claim that healthcare is too expensive and not widely enough available but then make no effort to increase the supply of healthcare in order to solve that problem. The “sollutions” to this are always some scheme to redistribute who pays for the health care that is available and to change how it is allocated. There never seems to be any effort to increase the supply of it.

      It is not just self medicate. It is going after the AMA and letting nurses and pharmacists do more. It is about building more medical schools and lowering the price of attending them. It is about allowing more medical professionals to immigrate into the country. Changing the rules to make it easier to start a clinic or a medical practice. Reforming the tort laws to make malpractice insurance cheaper.

      Those things would increase the supply of health care and necessarily make it more available and cheaper. But they are never on the table since they don’t create the opportunity for graft and corruption.

      1. Agreed! Every 3000 miles on my vehicle’s odometer I can drive under a quarter mile around my residence and find 20+ auto repair shops that will service my vehicle for around $19.99. The draw back is, as the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.

        1. If I am just getting my cholesterol or BP meds renewed, I really don’t care how good the doctor is, as long as his/her nurse can work a fax machine or email and send in my fucking prescription. If I am having cardiothoracic surgery, I am doing some homework before deciding (if the opportunity presents itself). The same with auto repairs, if it is a simple oil change, well actually I pay more to go to the dealership because I like their service better, but in reality I could go to some place employing minimum wage high school drop outs. If I had a way of disposing the oil and my own garage, I would do it myself. But if I am having a tranny rebuilt or the brakes worked on, I am checking references.

  19. Your post is titled “Kamala Harris Just Showed Why Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All Plan Won’t Work.” What you posted is the plan is unpopular, which true or not, has nothing to do with whether or not it will work.

  20. Oh, boy. We can all look forward to health care as good as the V.A.

  21. Medicare does not even cover Rx’s.

    1. Or preventative services, and only 80% of covered services.

      People who say they want Medicare for all really doesn’t know what Medicare is.

      Medicare is so great that if you have it you need to buy insurance.

      1. And a good percentage of doctors don’t take it either.

        1. Medicare is widely accepted in Florida because so many retired people age 65 and older live in the state.

    2. Medicare part D covers prescriptions, but not at 100%.

      1. Your part D coverage stops while you are in the so called donut hole.

  22. She means well, and that is what is important. No one ever said that good intentions lead to bad results.

    1. Um, something about “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”?

    2. After all the horrors socialism has inflicted, why do we still grant that socialists mean well.

      I mean, nobody looks at a neo-Nazi, and says, “He means well”. Same principle ought to apply to socialists.

  23. Harris and AOC need to come clean further, and annouce that besides pushing everyone into the government health plan, they will nationalize all hospitals and other facilities, and draft all health workers, including MDs, into the federal work force. Oh, and any private medicine will be illegal.

    1. Back to midwives and back-alley abortions, I guess

      1. There we go, now we’re getting somewhere!

        1. Don’t forget the ban on Viagra.

  24. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+……………… http://www.just4work.com

  25. “In its traditional form, a single-payer health care system would effectively outlaw private health insurance as we know it.” What does that mean, “traditional form?” In Japan, one can buy all the private supplementary health insurance you desire yet health care is guaranteed for all (there is an affordable co-pay) …

    1. Here’s a clue: If it’s “single” payer, you’re not allowed to count past one.

      1. I have wondered why Bernie and others pushing for “Medicare-for-All” have not modeled their proposal after traditional Medicare that exists now. Seniors age 65 can sign up for traditional Medicare and buy a supplemental policy. The so-called Medicare Advantage plans are popular, but I think traditional Medicare plans with supplements are the most popular.

  26. Do away with private insurance companies? Oh my!
    Wait, wasn’t massive insurance coverage started by FDA freezing wages the start of our healthcare downfall?
    How does the free market pay cash system so many libertarians think would work involve insurance?
    Even Canada said their single payer only law Hillary wanted was not constitutional and allows supplemental insurance.
    Y’all really should get out more and look at how other country’s healthcare works instead of getting your information through biased news sources that are as much fake news as the mass media. Actually talk to patients from the other countries. You’ll find some that love it and some that hate it. Look at the studies and those countries’ laws. It’s a wonderful world wide web out there that’s full of information from the source instead of seeking out confirmation bias to support what you want to believe.

    1. FDA should be FDR

    2. How does the free market pay cash system so many libertarians think would work involve insurance?

      Health care is one of the things most suited to insurance. The problem with health care costs is that there is no way to predict them for the individual. I could walk out today and get hit by a bus, dying on impact, and my total lifetime healthcare costs will be the cost of transporting me to the hospital and declaring me dead. I could also develop some horrible chronic diseases and have costs in the millions or anything in between. There is no way for me to have any idea what my personal healthcare costs will be. I can only guess.

      This makes it impossible for me to save or plan for such costs. I can’t save or plan for a cost I can’t quantify with any certainty. The genius of insurance is that it allows me to pool my risk with other people who have similar risks thus allowing the insurance company to quantify the cost of the entire group and have each individual pay an equal share. This then allows me to have some certainty of what my healthcare costs are and plan accordingly.

      How people manage to concinve themselves that health insurance is a bad thing or unnessary is beyond me.

    3. “Y’all really should get out more and look at how other country’s healthcare works instead of getting your information through biased news sources that are as much fake news as the mass media.”

      Doncha love when lefty ignoramuses show up to lecture us on regarding what we’ve all been examining closely for many years?
      Hey, Myk! Shaddup and siddown; you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  27. I thought basic math an entry level economics showed why Medicare for all wont work.

  28. Sounds fine to me. Go see whatever doctor you want since it would all either be private pay, or govt pay. There’s simply no downside. Under current Medicare, you can always buy whatever extras you want.

  29. Only the US and a few shit-hole countries do not have universal health care. It insults the intelligence to suggest that it can’t be done, or that it must involve getting rid of all private health insurance. Case in point, Swiss health care, which costs about 12% of GDP vs about 18% in the US. Other advanced countries, with systems even closer in concept to Medicare, provide universal coverage at even lower cost than Switzerland. French healthcare is arguably the best universal healthcare in the world, using 8% of GDP. The naysayers in this country may have a valid philosophical argument for leaving people out of the system, but they do not have anything approaching a valid practical case.

    1. Why has not Hawaii enacted universal health care?

    2. Socialized medicine sucks and is budget busting.

  30. Only the US and a few shit-hole countries do not have universal health care. It insults the intelligence to suggest that it can’t be done, or that it must involve getting rid of all private health insurance. Case in point, Swiss health care, which costs about 12% of GDP vs about 18% in the US. Other advanced countries, with systems even closer in concept to Medicare, provide universal coverage at even lower cost than Switzerland. French healthcare is arguably the best universal healthcare in the world, using 8% of GDP. The naysayers in this country may have a valid philosophical argument for leaving people out of the system, but they do not have anything approaching a valid practical case.

    1. Only lefty econ-imbeciles think this won’t bankrupt the country.
      That would be you, aajax.

      1. Only imbeciles would think that it somehow WOULD bankrupt the country. How do you come to the conclusion that the US is uniquely terrible and thus can’t afford to have universal healthcare despite being the richest country on Earth?

        1. “Only imbeciles would think that it somehow WOULD bankrupt the country. How do you come to the conclusion that the US is uniquely terrible and thus can’t afford to have universal healthcare despite being the richest country on Earth?”

          Because of what it costs, you idiot.

    2. Only lefty econ-imbeciles think this won’t bankrupt the country.
      That would be you, aajax.

    3. Move to one. In the meanwhile, keep your dirty paws off my purse.

    4. You can only cut costs a few ways:

      Reduce doctors/nurses pay. They will NOT like this, and it will create a shortage of people going into these fields.

      Reduce quality of care. Things like outright not treating the old and letting them die are common features of European systems. As are not getting the latest and greatest new tech when it first comes out. Also increased waiting times for care.

      Thaaat’s pretty much it. You then add back in inefficiencies because it is being run by government, and the cost savings are minimal if any at all… And it in fact costs you MORE when you factor in quality of care.

      So the question is, do we want to make 80-90% of the country WORSE OFF to give coverage to the 10-20%… Or not?

      Even if we do, it is an easy argument to make that we should just pay directly for poor peoples healtcare, and leave the rest alone.

      People in the USA spend the most on healthcare because we’re the only ones ABLE to choose how much we want to spend, ish since O-care. I’d rather choose my level of care, versus having the government dictating to everyone that we ALL have to have uber mediocre care.

      1. What docs and nurses are paid are not really the problem. Technology, labs and meds are the biggest cost.

        My EMR budget alone could pay for two MDs. The Mayo Clinic signed a contract with EPIC to build a custom EMR for one billion dollars.

      2. “ABLE to choose how much we spend”? Employer provided health insurance along with Medicare dominate health care spending in our country. Workers with employer provided insurance don’t have much choice – they get a few choices of deductibles from their employer. Medicare is a single payer hybrid. Prior to O-care, there was more consumer choice in the individual health insurance market – but that was always a small part of the puzzle, and insurance companies were not interested in offering coverage to potentially unprofitable customers. Those that think that only people with serious chronic health issues had trouble obtaining insurance are wrong. I know because I was an insurance agent from 1982 to 1997.

      3. The premise that private companies are more efficient than government has no basis in reality.

        1. LMAO!!! Was that sarcasm? I can’t think of anything the government does that is anywhere close to as efficient as private companies. Are you really going to claim Government involvement in Education, Healthcare and Housing has made those “more efficient”?

          If so; you haven’t been alive very long. Before student loans education was about $300/semester. Before the FHA & Freddie May/Mack you could buy a house for under $10k. Before Medicaid – Doctors would come to your house for the price of a pizza.

          Even today; People can afford free-market food, water and all sorts of consumer goods yet somehow struggle to no end with anything associated with “Government”.

    5. I’ve read about the Swiss system and there is a lot to like – but we’re not Switzerland. That country is wealthier (per capita income and per capita accumulated wealth), very small, and culturally cohesive. They have an individual mandate for a basic plan, and those plans are offered by insurance companies. Low income citizens get government (tax payer) support for the cost of the basic plans. Optional coverage upgrades are offered by the insurance companies (which is how they make profits).

  31. I’d really like to see the look on most Congress-folk faces if someone would ask that, if everything is going under this one system, that, of course, implies that the House and Senate would as well. Maybe they’ll pioneer the system to make sure it works?

    1. Of course Congress would be on this system. “All” means all.

  32. Heh! A Marxist schooling a Socialist cum Neo-Communist! You can’t make this stuff up!
    Explain how this is not a dog-fight over other peoples money?

  33. Move to one. In the meanwhile, keep your dirty paws off my purse.

  34. I was heartbroken because i had very small penis, not nice to satisfy a woman, i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments about this specialist called Dr Astogo and decided to email him on drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com
    so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, ” and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9 inches longer and am so happy..feel free to contact drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com call him or what-apps him through +2348038275729

  35. I was heartbroken because i had very small penis, not nice to satisfy a woman, i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments about this specialist called Dr Astogo and decided to email him on drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com
    so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, ” and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9 inches longer and am so happy..feel free to contact drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com call him or what-apps him through +2348038275729

  36. I was heartbroken because i had very small penis, not nice to satisfy a woman, i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments about this specialist called Dr Astogo and decided to email him on drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com
    so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, ” and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9 inches longer and am so happy..feel free to contact drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com call him or what-apps him through +2348038275729

  37. I was heartbroken because i had very small penis, not nice to satisfy a woman, i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments about this specialist called Dr Astogo and decided to email him on drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com
    so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, ” and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9 inches longer and am so happy..feel free to contact drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com call him or what-apps him through +2348038275729

  38. I was heartbroken because i had very small penis, not nice to satisfy a woman, i had so many relationship called off because of my situation, i have used so many product which i found online but none could offer me the help i searched for. i saw some few comments about this specialist called Dr Astogo and decided to email him on drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com
    so I decided to give his herbal product a try. i emailed him and he got back to me, he gave me some comforting words with his herbal pills for Penis Enlargement, Within 1 week of it, i began to feel the enlargement of my penis, ” and now it just 2 weeks of using his products my penis is about 9 inches longer and am so happy..feel free to contact drastogoherbalhome@gmail. com call him or what-apps him through +2348038275729

  39. Harris, Bernie, and others promoting Single-payer don’t seem to be communicating honestly about is how the transition will play out. They hope that employers, once relieved of their health insurance costs, will put that “savings” in the employees’ paychecks. If that doesn’t happen, then the required payroll taxes to finance single-payer will leave workers with A LOT LESS take home pay. On the other side, all the hysteria about $33 trillion in spending over the next decade under Bernie’s plan is amazingly stupid. We are already on track to spend at least that much – it’s just that in our current multi-tiered system, it will be a combination of employer provided coverage, Medicare, Medicaid, O-care policies, and the V.A.

  40. I am creating an honest wage from home 2500 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started…..
    ????COPY THIS WEBSITE????

    HERE? http://www.briskgold.com

  41. Getting rid of (what we call) health insurance is a good idea, but not this way. INsurance should be for catastrophes; regular maintenance, if it were out of pocket, would re-introduce prices as information to the consumer, and therefore help lower those prices. Sure, nobody (as the argument goes) shops for a hospital from the back of an ambulance, but you can shop for office visits, routine and elective procedures, etc.

    1. Sure, because the “information” that you can’t afford to pay for medical treatment is going to be really useful to everyone.

  42. There’s nothing ambiguous about “Medicare for All.” It literally means that every American would be put on the same Medicare program that that those 65 and above currently enroll in.

  43. Nothing is more taxing on our current healthcare system of private insurance cherry-picking the young and healthy for profits while casting the sick and old to tax payers to pay. Private insurance rarely works without many regulations because medical service supply IS so far from free market in the US that people have little power – and ofter time – to price compare services.

    If you want the government out of healthcare – it has to be TOTALLY out which means no barriers to entry ( NO licensing of doctors/ nurses or restrictions on services performed) as well as no state boards limiting physician supply. In addition there would be no restrictions on prescribing/selling/manufacture of medicines and medical devices.

    If this is not gonna happen, then the only way to a better system is by a powerful demand structure to match the power of the doctor cartel and pharma monopoly, which is why MOST developed countries have government or single payer healthcare.

  44. Don’t worry, as long as you don’t get sick, the system can’t screw you.

  45. Medicare is already such a ripoff anyway, largely due to the outlandishly high costs of administration….. just think about it. Hordes of GOVERNMENT workers managing it all, the admin costs are out of control where a private insurance compay, motivated for proifit, would NOT bear such a top-heavy load. They’d streamline it, something Uncle Stupid knows not how to do.

    Further, having recently been forced onto Medicare, I’ve seen the billing for my medical costs….. the actual charge billed by the facility or practitioner, and what Medicare actually paid them, NEVER the full amount, most often a third or less the billed amoung. That means the provider is taking it in the shorts by handling medicare patients. Not right.

    Also Medicare refused to pay for a prescription I had, I asked how much to decide whether I’d buy it out of MY posket,m the price was $38. Then the pharmacist took me down to the other end of the counter and told me to go to aisle 17, on the right, low down, halfway along, I’d find the same product over the counter.. for twelve bucks.

    Ditch Medicare altogether. Let private industry replace it, and for those eligible have FedGov simply reimburse the PATIENT or have providers bill directly. As long as Medicare exists, our healthcare will never work.

  46. Harris is an inexperienced fool having no real world practical experience.

    Further, she is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, thus cannot be president. About time she admit that. She’s a spoilt brat stamping her feet to get her own mean-spirited way. She needs to take a timeout and go find a new sugar daddy maybe another Brown Willie…….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.