General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About
Secular Talk
comments
Comments by "" (@thehumanity0) on "Tulsi On Her 'Single Payer Plus' Healthcare Plan" video.
The plan she releases better take the profit motive out of the private insurance tier of her healthcare plan because otherwise it's going to succumb to the same problems that a public option has. For instance, France allows private insurance but they have made insurance companies nonprofits, THIS is what is required if you're going to compromise and leave private insurance as a key part of the healthcare system.
3
@mpj12345 Comparing that plan to NHS is a joke, it's literally nationalized healthcare and Medicare for All still allows private insurance that offers something 'extra' just like NHS.
3
That's why becoming president is important to force the Dem Party's hand. And at the very least, we can actually trust him to implement executive orders to drastically improve the current healthcare system if all else fails.
3
It doesn't even matter anymore. She claimed to support Medicare for All for years. She fucking co-sponsored the Medicare for All bill in the House and now suddenly she doesn't think private insurance should be eliminated? The consistency is the broader issue with her pivot.
2
Same with Warren's plan, something tells me Jimmy isn't going to butter up Warren's plan though.
2
Tulsi's two-tiered system is like what Bernie would EVENTUALLY have to compromise on to get an upgraded healthcare system passed if all else failed and couldn't pass true Single Payer. However, you DON'T start out at the compromise position before the fucking primary is even over. Sorry but this is bad policy and especially bad politics. Ask Obama and his Romneycare bill what he thinks about it.
2
Israel has this thing called Apartheid Medicare for All.
2
@subzoronltd7779 "Bernie's plan is actually far to the left of most other developed countries". No, the majority of countries have full Single Payer systems and the countries that have two-tiered systems like France have actually made private insurance companies nonprofits or taken the profit motive out in some way. In terms of what it offers such as dental and eye care, yes that is MORE than what most other countries offer, but the entire plan is not "more left", just go look at NHS if you want to see what a real nationalized healthcare system looks like.
2
Doesn't matter, they're both worse than Bernie's. Medicare for All has been deemed the "gold standard" for a reason.
1
If it were anyone else on the Left refusing to call Bolivia a coup, Jimmy would rant and rage and call them a sellout. In Tulsi's case, it's just total crickets.
1
Private insurance in the UK is still funded by the government.
1
Does Australia implement regulations to end the profit motive of private insurance like countries like Germany and France do? In France's case, they literally make all private insurance nonprofits by law. In my opinion, if you don't end the profit motive, you will still have a mostly broken system like we have here.
1
You would still be able to choose from more doctors than we have now (in network), but it wouldn't be anywhere close to what Medicare for All would provide since all the doctors are in the same pool in that system, whereas Tulsi's is split down the middle and would likely result in a lot of doctors taking no patients that are enrolled in the public option.
1
Private insurance still exists under Medicare for All, however, the only way that's possible is when it provides something 'extra'. There will still be private insurance, but it will only exist when they don't simply just try to duplicate the coverage that people are already provided free at the point of service. If you have a rich hypochondriac, they will still be able to buy insurance that gives them 100 different blood tests and MRI's when they go for a daily hospital visit. If you're an insurance company, what you can't do is offer insurance that covers lung and kidney surgery, because that's already covered under Medicare for All and the government acting as the single payer already allows you to see any doctor you want. Even in countries that have private insurance, the private insurance is usually always funded by the government as the single payer. The countries that don't have it under single payer have still taken out the profit motive such as France who have made private insurance companies nonprofits by law. There are very few places that still offer private insurance and allow them to profit off healthcare and price gouge citizens. That's mostly an American thing.
1
Norways has a true Single Payer system, they do not have a two-tiered system. Any private insurance is likely either just supplemental (that's what it sounds like you're saying), or it's still funded by the government ie the single payer for everyone.
1
@jallarhorn The one example you gave is something that is literally allowed under Medicare for All because it falls under supplemental insurance. There will still be private insurance for many elective procedures that do not fall under the category of necessary care. And yes, for things like cancer surgery, spleen surgery, or less serious things that fall under Medicare for All you cannot skip the line because those things are a part of the Single Payer system and many of them are in place to save the most lives and prioritize health over the size of your wallet. The system is not setup like that just to make things fair, it's done so that the system is most efficient when it comes to creating the healthiest society.
1
@jallarhorn Yes it's called duplicative private care and it's predatory by nature and at the detriment of the entire single payer system. Tulsi's proposed bill is not terrible, it's just not the most ideal system. It's important to note that when Obama went into office he promised everyone a public option, but then comprised later in negotiations on what was effectively a right-wing healthcare system proposed by a think tank funded by Mitt Romney. If you're going to compromise on healthcare it should not be in the primary before negotiations even start. Tulsi's plan that caters specifically to private insurance and the rich sounds like something that Bernie's plan would turn into after a year of negotiations with corporate Democrats and Republicans, whereas Tulsi's would likely get turned into a public option, or worse just a tweak of Obamacare. The fact of the matter is that Tulsi compromising now is not only weak policy (weaker than Medicare for All) but it's terrible politics. Anyone willing to compromise in the primary is likely not serious about creating a universal healthcare program.
1
Remember when Jimmy Dore used to be against half-measures?
1
Marc Ruffalo "Tulsi's plan is more like the Israeli system than Bernie's. " Yeah, that's not a good thing. Recently Netanyahu's far right regime has made private insurers a key part of their healthcare system and developed far more of a two-tier system (just as Tulsi proposes). A two-tier system is what happens when a far right regime takes a sledgehammer to true Single Payer healthcare.
1
@karhu96 This is incredibly inaccurate. The majority of 1st world countries have a full Single Payer system and then the countries that actually provide private insurance have taken the profit motive out. Germany provides funds for the private insurers so they are still the Single Payer, while France has literally made all private insurers nonprofits by law. If you go 5 miles north of the US, Canada eliminates duplicative private care just like Bernie's bill, because it is predatory by nature and offers nothing 'extra'. It only exists to scam people out of the plans they already pay taxes for.
1
@MrWebweaver "Everyone else has a two tier medical care system" Countries that have a true Single Payer system (no two-tiers): 1. Norway 2. Japan 3. Sweden 4. Canada 5. Finland 6. Portugal 7. Spain 8. Iceland 9. Cyprus 10. Italy 11. Slovenia 12. UAE 13. Kuwait 14. Bahrain 15. Bruenei Countries that have a two-tiered system: 1. Australia 2. France (private insurance are nonprofits) 4. Singapore 5. Israel 6. Hong Kong 7. New Zealand 8. Denmark 9. Netherlands Do the math.
1
@roffaleft499 Are you referring to supplemental private insurance aka insurance that offers something 'extra' in addition to the Single Payer coverage? There are a lot of people commenting who seem confused about what supplemental insurance is and how just having supplemental does not make it a two-tier system. If those doctors "outside the system" are offering something extra it qualifies as supplemental and it doesn't change it being a full Single Payer system, supplemental coverage is allowed to be sold when it operates outside the realm of what Single Payer offers, that "one plan for everyone" you mentioned. Supplemental insurance is something the Medicare for All proposal allows. Med 4 All is not going to eliminate the entire insurance industry despite MSM constantly fearmongering over it and your "lack of choice". Everything else you mentioned sounds exactly like a Single Payer system ("only 3 companies offer public + private insurance, only one exact same plan, fixed price for everyone"). Every country does Single Payer differently, what matters is if the government is the single payer for all public and private insurance companies and/or public and private hospitals/practitioners. The sheer existence of a private insurance company does not mean it's a two-tiered system, it matters whose funding the companies and system, and like I said doctors operating outside the system also just sounds like supplemental insurance.
1
@roffaleft499 I just looked it up and from what I read Slovenia has a national healthcare system that is entirely publicly financed where the government finances both public and private practitioners, even in the case of dental, though sometimes people have co-pays, which is normal in any system especially for dental. The government publicly funds the VHI market and everyone pays into a mandatory insurance program called the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia, which is paid into with taxes by both employers and employees just like any Single Payer system. This sounds exactly like Single Payer. Private practitioners operating outside the system as supplemental insurance is completely inline with a functioning Single Payer system. If you have a source that says part of the system is privately funded and those 3 insurance companies make billions or millions in profits you can show me, but everything that I've read tells me it's Single Payer, even the stuff that you said sounds like it.
1
Wrong af. Most countries that still allow private insurance either only exist as supplemental (same with Bernie's bill) or they have taken the profit motive out entirely or the government funds them, thus they still qualify as Single Payer ie the gov't is the single payer for everyone. Tulsi's bill creates a two-tiered system and doesn't take the profit motive out, allowing the insurance industry to continue to price gouge Americans for $100 billion a year. Bernie's bill still allows private insurance as supplemental, but if you allowed duplicative private care that was funded by the government, it would only be marginally different from Bernie's bill because both do the exact same thing and are funded in the same way, only the structure is different.
1
@chulic6305 Oh yeah you really enjoy your Aetna and UnitedHealth Group? Congrats you have a massively unpopular opinion. The vast majority of people just want to see any doctor they want and not have to worry about bureaucracy and out-of-pocket expenses. And Germany happens to be one of those countries I listed where private insurers are funded by the government, so nice job reinforcing my point.
1
@jeanlucbergman479 Except NHS and other full Single Payer systems are undoubtedly better according to statistics. Your anecdote doesn't change that. All you need to do is go 5 miles north of the US and Canada bans duplicative private insurance because it is predatory by nature and offers nothing 'extra', which is what supplemental insurance is for, something that Medicare for All still allows.
1
@subzoronltd7779 I don't think you understand what nationalized healthcare is. The NHS is nationalized because hospitals are entirely government run in the UK. The reason Medicare for All is the compromise position is because under that system, the government just acts as a single payer for private (and public) hospitals and practitioners. Yes, it takes out the middle man insurance companies (because it's unnecessary overhead, bureaucracy and everyone hates them), but it doesn't nationalize the hospitals and practitioners, which is why when you say "Bernie's plan is to the left of a fully nationalized healthcare system", it sounds utterly ridiculous and uninformed/misinformed. The number of things a plan covers is inconsequential compared to the way the entire fucking system functions.
1
@JM-yf3ol If Jimmy's forte is anti-imperialism, then it's a real shame he never criticizes Tulsi over Kashmir, Israel, and especially her latest dodge on Bolivia and failing to call it a coup when asked about it.
1
Private insurance in the UK is still funded by the government under a Single Payer system. What she's proposing does not do that and it does not even take the profit motive out, all it does is create an option that's publicly funded but leaves the broken private insurance industry in its place that constantly price gouges Americans, misinforms people, and spends millions upon millions of dollars to advertise propaganda against a single payer system. It doesn't try to fund private insurance under the Single Payer system (like the UK system) nor does it try to make private insurance companies nonprofits or take the profit motive out (like the France system).
1
Norway has a fully Single Payer system, and the vast majority of countries that have a two-tiered system have taken the profit motive out of insurance. France literally makes insurance companies nonprofits by law, so I think you're a little uninformed on the specifics.
1
@thedumbdanedumbdane1689 Both Norway, Finland and Iceland have a full Single Payer system, they do not have a two-tiered system that keeps the private industry as a core part of healthcare, and as I said before the majority of 1st world countries that actually have a two-tiered system have taken the profit motive out. Whether they cover dental or as much as the Canadian system or Bernie's proposed system is inconsequential to them being defined as true Single Payer.
1
@thedumbdanedumbdane1689 "private for profit health insurance for extra care" Yeah it's called supplemental health insurance. The current Medicare for All bill ALSO allows supplemental insurance. Having supplemental insurance doesn't make it a two-tiered system. The only private insurance that Medicare for All Single Payer eliminates is duplicative private care because it doesn't provide anything 'extra', it's predatory by nature because it DUPLICATES the coverage provided by Single Payer and insurance companies try to advertise and sell it to people for additional costs when they're already paying taxes for the same coverage free at the point of service under Single Payer healthcare.
1
@thedumbdanedumbdane1689 And I'm telling you anything that qualifies outside of Medicare for All coverage is allowed as supplemental insurance, that includes specialists, alternative procedures, unnecessary elective procedures and anything that's not directly covered by Med 4 All. Supplemental insurance is ALLOWED. When people argue against Medicare for All under the guise of "choice", all they're doing is arguing for duplicative insurance that is only tedious, unnecessary and charges people extra when they're already offered the same coverage under Single Payer. It offers nothing "EXTRA" unless it's supplemental.
1
She also co-sponsored Medicare for All in the House and claimed to support it for years. If she's pivoting now, who knows what she will pivot on later. Doesn't matter though because she won't win, this primarily just matter because it effects the popularity of Medicare for All when other candidates do shit like this.
1
@ZoeyPaigeLunaPhD Except the difference is that if Bernie pivoted on healthcare and came out for a two-tiered system or public option, Kyle would put him on blast. THAT is the difference.
1
@Ojja78 Not to mention she just refused to call the coup in Bolivia a coup. If it were anyone else, Jimmy would call them a sell out.
1
celvester allison His attitude towards Bernie for the past 2 years has also been extremely personal. He says things like "Bernie's revolution is a lie" and one time during a livestream said he hopes Bernie loses in 2020, but you can tell it's mostly fueled by the fact that Bernie won't go on his show and Jimmy feels spited.
1
@Schmidty1 I mostly agree. Medicare for All is a compromise to a true Nationalized Healthcare System, it's why compromising even more on a two-tiered system is a shit idea and totally unacceptable especially in the primary.
1