"If they cured sickness and suffering than what's your complaint?"

Agreed.

Sickness is always going to be there. My concern is mostly about how that sickness is treated and managed. I'll go with the entity that provides me with the best quality care. I could care less if they make money off of it.

"What about if you're bankrupted by it? Is that not a measure of a good healthcare system?"

That's a decision by the individual, but I'd say bankruptcy is a small price to pay to keep living.

"Nobody is stopping you from paying more for it though."

I'm pretty sure I pay the right amount. The doctors seem to think so.

Underpayment is one of the top reasons doctors quit healthcare though. So we may all end up paying more just to make sure doctors keep being doctors.

"It is?"

#3 on the list.

"In an advanced civilized society one should have to go bankrupt just to stay alive. Guess we aren't one of those yet."

Probably half the countries in the world have an "American" Hospital. Just like they have an "American" high school.

If it were so bad, why would it be so popular?

"Whether you think so or not, there is a proven need for basic and emergency universal care. And people should NOT have to stress about money to get it."

I don't think that's what this bill is about. Whether provided by a for-profit organization or a non-profit, hospitals still cost money. So do doctors. So does medication. And so does all the other stuff.

If taxpayers want to provide free healthcare to all, that's a different ball of wax altogether. But one that most countries have chosen to solve. VAT, anyone?

"Every single one of those reasons could be addressed outside of OUR for-profit healthcare system, as many other countries have already done."

I'm not stupid. I could care less about whether or not someone profits by providing me with healthcare. I am going to want the best healthcare that I can get-that's what I care about. And being one of the few people here in a position to compare the healthcare that I was provided by the government, and the healthcare I recieve through the private healthcare facility I use now, I'll take the private system any day of the week. Had I known there was such a vast difference between what was available through private healthcare compared to what the government provided, I probably would have tried to find a way to utilize private healthcare years ago. Even if I had to cover part of the cost out of pocket.

"Yet none of them are trying to copy the American healthcare system. Guess why."

Sure they are. It's why I can go to an American hospital in virtually every European country. And it's why a lot of people in those countries choose to use an American hospital.

Not that American hospitals are the be all-end all. Most of the private hospitals are going to be pretty decent I think.

"Yeah because that's the only other choice if you dont let price gouging middle men run your healthcare system."

In my experience, the service with the "price gouging middle men" all offer the best service.

"It costs MORE money if you add in a layer of profit taking middlemen to each step of that process, does it not?"

It depends. If you can cut out that middle man without sacrificing quality of efficiency, then yes. But my experience in the not-for-profit government is that things sometimes cost the taxpayer more going through government than it would if they paid market price.

"If you don't include price in your definition of "best"."

I pay for healthcare now. I didn't before. I'll take the stuff I pay for over the free stuff any day of the week.

"Yes. Because there weren't enough liberals in power to actually fix healthcare, and corporate moderates like leiberman prevented us from single payer or public option."

YOu have two public options. Medicare and Medicaid. Some states offer government-sponsored plans as well.

And don't bring liberals into it. Single-payer is anything but liberal. Bernie Sanders plan to ban private healthcare would condemn the United States to a system that you couldn't get out from under. Unless you went to a different country for your healthcare.

This is authoritarianism with a progressive flag planted on it.

Honestly, I think if progressives pursued a public-option for those who wanted it scheme, it would probably do far better. Based on my experience, I want nothing to do with any sort of draconian single-payer scheme.

"That's not the plan."

Sure.

---- jobs would still be offered as a private form of healthcare, if you consider that healthcare.

But if it were a service that were offered by the government, it would become illegal for a private practice to offer that same care.

"Time is money. And dealing with for profit insurance is a tax on your time."

So... under the government system, appoints are available online 30 days out from today's date. In the last two years I was in the military, there was not a single appointment available for my family members. As an aviator, I could usually find something within that 30-day window. If there was something wrong, you went to the ER. Period. You weren't going to get an appointment with a provider.

When my daughter was headed off to college, I tried to book her physical through the military. As usual, there was nothing available. So I called a private clinic. They got me in by the end of the week.

The first time I ever made an appointment with my new provider I was floored. I called on a Monday and got a Thursday appointment. I started laughing. I couldn't believe it.

When I file a claim, I upload my receipts online. Cigna does the rest. In fact, I'd prefer to pay with a credit card and get reimbursed. That's points! I've never once talked to Cigna on the phone.

I still have government healthcare...I just don't use it. I don't actually even know how to use it, or if I could use it. They use a government-sponsored two-factor authentication system that sometimes requires a VPN and sometimes won't work if you have a VPN.

"You're forced to pay money to wall street plutocrats as part of your healthcare costs, and you can still be bankrupted by getting sick."

Forced?

I've never come across a healthcare provider that didn't take personal credit cards.

"There is a difference between "health care" and "health insurance."

Under Bernie care, pretty much all access to healthcare would be regulated and managed by the federal government. Meaning you would take the care the government gave you when they chose to give it to you. Not unlike the healthcare I received in the military.

And like the military, it would be unlawful for me to utilize a private healthcare plan when the government plan failed to suit my needs.

The one thing I am not clear on with Berniecare is whether or not an individual could pay out of pocket (not through health insurance) for care outside the constraints of Berniecare. I could not find anything prohibiting it, but that would seem to violate the central tenet of Berniecare, which is that the richest American and the poorest will receive the exact same level of care; regardless of the interest of the patients receiving (or paying) for the care, or the doctors providing it.

"What makes you say that?"

You haven't read Bernie's Bill, have you?

"This has to be by choice, since you keep getting it wrong."

What am I getting wrong? I've read the bill. It clearly states that health insurance would be legally prohibited from providing any service that was offered by Berniecare. Which means that you would get the care the government gave you when the government gave it to you.

"Just a reminder that madbomber gets his health care through our socialist military system."

No, -------, I don't.

I could. I still have access to it. It just sucks compared to my Cigna plan.

#65

And if this were a public system, how would it be different?

You seem to think that by nationalizing healthcare, all these things go away. Real-world circumstances suggest otherwise.

Why do you think people purchase supplemental healthcare in places like the UK, where everyone has a public plan to start with?

"Health insurance doesn't offer services. Health insurance offers to pay for services."

So, it's just a less draconian, more voluntary variant of Berniecare.

"To get things paid for, that aren't paid for on the public plan. It's why you have Cigna and also have a publicly paid plan."

100% incorrect.

In the UK, supplemental health insurance gets you the same care, just faster and at higher quality. Instead of waiting months to see a specialist, you wait days or weeks. Instead of recovering in a hospital bay, you get your own room.

That sort of thing.

"To get things paid for, that aren't paid for on the public plan. It's why you have Cigna and also have a publicly paid plan."

The medical care I qualify for under the government plan is still medical care. I would just have to wait longer to get it and there would be fewer options.

My plan now costs ~$700 per month. Up from $600. Believe me, when I first got hired I asked my co-workers if it was worth it. They all said definitely. So far, they have shown themselves to have been correct.

"That is ABSOLUTELY NOT what it states. You're COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTING the truth. It merely forbids them from offering (or pretending to offer) exact copies of M4A. Your use of "any service" could not be more off the mark."

If I have a broken leg, I cannot use private insurance to get it fixed. I can only use Berniecare.

If I need a hip replacement, I cannot use private insurance to get a hip replacement. That would be illegal.

If I need treatment for cancer, I cannot get that treatment unless it is not offered by Berniecare. So maybe homeopathic treatments would be available.

What Berniecare would do is ban duplicate coverage. If Berniecare covered the service or procedure, Berniecare would be your only option to get that care if you wanted to get treated in the US.

"If there are fewer options, then the government plan does not provide insurance coverage for all of the medical care."

I'm going to the doctor on Monday about my shoulder. Torn rotator cuff. I chose the doctor, and I chose the time.

If I had gone through the military system, I could have still seen a doctor about a torn rotator cuff, I would have just had fewer options to choose from, both in terms of doctors, and times.

If I were still on active duty, I'd have zero choice of doctor or time.

Does 'Medicare for All' end private insurance?

"Sanders has said he envisions these remaining plans covering a handful of items like cosmetic surgery that are left out of Medicare. For everything else, the only option is Medicare."

I get care from the providers. The insurance company just reimburses me for what I paid.

"Even if you are correct about M4A ("Berniecare"), which you are not, why do you believe a transition to M4A is the only choice?"

Because that is how the Bernie bill is written. If implemented, it would provide a transition period over which every USan would be moved from whatever private healthcare plan they had onto Berniecare. No exceptions. Those who did not have health insurance would be automatically enrolled. No exceptions.

Healthcare plans would still be available for services that Berniecare did not provide, such as cosmetic surgery or other procedures that were not medically necessary.

"M4A will probably never become the law of the land. But you seem to make your entire argument based upon an idea that it's the only option."

God no. Berniecare is only one option, and compared to other countries, incredibly extreme. Because it would prohibit an individual from getting healthcare outside of the government system. It would also prohibit doctors from operating out of the government system.

I live in Europe. It seems like this continent has figured out how to crack the nut without immediately going high and right.

"At this point, M4A is only a bill. Before it ever becomes law, I'm certain "Berniecare" would be revised substantially. Until "Berniecare" is actually set into law, it's unfair to say that you're certain you would lose your private insurance."

I'm not much of a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that Berniecare would be deemed unconstitutional, as it removes the right of patient choice in healthcare, as well as doctor choice. Buying healthcare outside of what was provided by government would be like trying to buy an F-22. YOu may have the money, LockMart might be willing to sell, but government policy would prohibit the sale.

And if you think about Bernie and where he is coming from, this is necessary. If Egalitarianism is your goal, then the healthcare available to the poorest USan is the same healthcare provided to the richest. If doctors are given a choice on which patients they can pick, they will choose the ones that pay the most first. That happens now in the US. It happens in the UK with the NHS. The only way to create an egalitarian healthcare system is to create a system where choice isn't a choice.

"Not only does MB NOT care if people go bankrupt obtaining healthcare, he'd also like to see them give the credit card companies another 2-3 percent cut. And that's just on the transaction. It doesn't even count the interest on the unpaid balance."

Seriously? I prefer to pay my doctor bills with cards. They're typically large bills, which means lots of instant points for me.

In fact, the one I use for most of my medical bills gives me 2.5% back.

"You have suggested that some sort of public healthcare could be funded by a VAT. I don't see that."

Why not?

VATs are a standard in every modern country but the US. It's also a tax that is almost impossible to avoid if you want to buy consumer goods.

"How often have you seen a bill implemented as it was originally written? Stop acting as if that's even likely."

I think it is very unlikely. What is disturbing is the number of people who would support a Berniecare bill.

Those people have little room to complain about Trump.

"More Health Systems Likely to Drop Out of Medicare Advantage, Analyst Predicts"

More health systems are going to be opting out of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, George Hill, a managing director at Deutsche Bank in Boston, predicted Monday at a "Wall Street Comes to Washington" webinar hosted by the Brookings Institution.

"Which is the precise reason the U.S. will NEVER adopt one. VATs are the most regressive taxes on the planet because those with the least wealth and income spend all or almost all of their income on goods and services - which means the poorest would be paying the highest percentage of their wealth/income in taxes just so the wealthier can escape meaningful taxation on all the revenue and wealth their investments generate."

So...Europe is regressive?

VATs in Europe run from around 15% to 25%

Is it your position that the US needs to be less like Europe?

"At least nobody ever accused you of being a fiscal conservative!"

Heh.

You don't really know me...but being a fiscal conservative with one's own discretionary income and with taxpayer dollars are two very, very different things.

I'll waste my money all day long. Because it's mine. I'm less OK with wasting taxpayer dollars...and I don't pay taxes really, FWIW.

That said, I think I have an understanding that you don't view personal income as being personal income, but rather something that it collectively earned and should be collectively distributed.

"So is the metric system. It's unrelated."

Does the metric system generate tax revenue?

#111

Is it your opinion that Europe is regressive when it comes to taxation?

"Newsflash: Poor people pay taxes too, so even they are invisibly impacted by our imbalanced system."

Yeah. Not really. And nothing like what the "poor" pay in Europe,

"In 2018 the lowest fifth of earners on average paid no net federal taxes at all. The top 1% paid a total rate (ie, after all deductions) of 30%, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Include state and local levies, and high earners face a marginal tax rate on each extra dollar they take home"the rate that matters for work incentives"which is middling by rich-country standards. Tax refunds for poor families are exceptionally generous. In 2019 a single parent of two children earning two-thirds of average pay faced total net labour taxes of only 10%, according to analysis by the oecd, a club of mostly rich countries. In egalitarian Sweden the rate was nearly 33%."

"The impediment to any US VAT lies with the reality that we don't have socialized health insurance removing the trillions of non-productive dollars sucked up by middlemen that don't deliver a single tangible benefit to healthcare delivery nor service provision."

How is that an impediment?

If there were a VAT, the US could implement a plethora of social programs. Just like much of Europe has.

"I am just praying my health insurance covers repeated bite wounds to the ankle."

You should just be happy if you have health insurance, dude.

You don't seem the type to think they should have any responsibility for looking after your own healthcare.

That's the job of the 1%, right? To make sure you have healthcare?

"I don't see how that is germane to the discussion."

Of course you don't.

Because you se earned income as being community property.

Other than your own earned income, of course. You worked hard for that.