Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Washington Post" channel.

  1.  @roguewade6733  Spending per person (All no matter who pays, that includes government subsidies) in the range of USD 4,700 - 4900 (Japan, France, Canada, Australia. And Belgium - that is a SMALLER country) ..... 5,700 Germany (OECD 2017). Most wealthy countries are in the range of 5,000 - 5,500 ! Outlier: UK with only 4,250 (but completely underfunded) and Switzerland which like the U.S. leaves insurance to the for-profit insurance companies. It shows: USD 8,000 per person per year. (at least the system is good, they pay staff well and everyone is covered, the Kantons give subsidies). And then there is the U.S. with USD 10,240 per person per year  (per person includes always residents that did not need any treatments and in the U.S. people that do not have coverage or are get too little treatment too late). Single payer countries also ! give a lot of government subsidies. But since they are much more cost efficient the governments pay LESS in subsidies per person - and the citizens and the companies pay much, much less. **
    16
  2. 2:29 The U.S. does spend DOUBLE compared to other rich countries - outlier Switzerland has a system that relies on private insurers like the U.S. - it shows in the expenditures per person of USD 8,000 as shown in 2:44 - the claim made in 2:48 is not correct - All other nations are between 4,700 and 5,700 USD * - versus 10,2040 of the U.S. - most wealthy nations are in that range (maybe up to 6,000) all numbers for 2017 - Keiser Foundation  I know only the U.S., CH, Taiwan (costs not comparable, much younger population , lower standard of wages), maybe Singapore, that use mainly private insurers. All other countries (not only those shown with the costs) have AT LEAST a very strong (if not dominant) public non-profit insurance agency. That agency has contracts with for-profit and non-profit providers and companies. The more non-profit (escpecially when it comes to large providers like hospitals) the more cost-efficient. The Swiss insurance companies are at least better regulated than in the U.S., they cannot kick people off insurance, the premiums are the same for all people in the same age group (so no pre-existing conditions, I assume that means also no healthcare questions), denial of treatment would not fly. Lower income people get a subsidy (that is regulated per Kanton). And at least one Kanton offers a public option for insurance. With all these provisions - Switzerland still has costs of USD 8,000 per person per year. Difference: Everyone is covered, going broke over medical bills is unknown. the insurerers do not have a cherrypicked pool (in the U.S. plus 65 year old and people on disability are in the public system. 10 % of patients cause 90 % of costs, and old age is a major factor - so the private insurers already have a huge advantage because the most expensive group is covered by Medicare / Medicaid). Australia has a 2 tier system: Basics and the expensive treatments (hopsitals) are under the public coverage, but specialists, dental etc. is covered by "private" insurannce. That can be considered a gift to the insurance industry and high inomce people (their general tax helps fund the public system, which can be somewhat defunded if it does not cover ALL that is relevant for modern medicine. The private insurance will be somewhat overpriced but very wealthy people will still do better. It makes the _healthcare_system more expensive for everyone. And there is MORE CHANCE that doctors can only offer private serivces. They will have enough patients, since the law makers carved out a niche for private. It is also possible to somewhat defund the public system which will cause wait times with the doctors and spcecialist that do accept public insurance coverage. - so people that want acceptable wait time will be fored to buy overpriced insurance. Plus there is the incentive to "milk" the contracts of patients with good insurance coverage (overtesting, keeping them longer in the hospital). In a system where all people get the same treatment that is not done - it would become too expensive and the public agency would stop treatments and tests that do not have value (in avoided costs, better diagnosis, preventive effect etc). In countries where the public insurance is comprehensive and reasonably funded wait times (for specialists, for elecitve surgery, in the ER) are acceptable. This is about funding and having the units spread out over the country. There a private doctor has to offer real value (a capacity in the field, offers a spceciality like accupuncture, really good with children, makes concessions regarding open times, ....). Acceptable waiting times, or being one of the few specialists in town will not suffice.
    9
  3. I could write essays about the many flaws and outright deceptions and lies they were able to pack into that hit piece. Unbelieveable. - I live currently in Austria where they do have good healthcare for all of the population. - Everybody: do not buy the b.s. produced by WaPo, those shills should be ashamed of themselves. No one massages the numbers and arguments in that manner and does not have the insights or intellectual capacity to KNOW WHAT IS REALLY THE MATTER. Regular citizens may have honest misconceptions - but these are sophisticated LIARS. ALL OTHER WEALTHY nations do it differently and MOST made the switch after the end of WW2 (or expanded existing systems). And they spend 41 - 56 % of what the U.S. is spending. it will be a arge task to change the course of the tanker - but staying the course is not an option. I assume some cost savings will manifest right away - others after a transition phase of 6 - 10 years (preventive care effects !) Or training MORE doctors.
    7
  4.  @roguewade6733  I will write it down Japan 128 million, germany 85 million, Austria 8,7 million, UK, Italy, France 60 - 65 million, Denmark 3 million (or 4), Iceland 300,000 people.
    6
  5. The fortunes will of course continue to bring capital gains - so the poor billionaires will not be stripped off 50 % of their assets over 10 years. It might force them to break up some of the conglomerates (a good thing - anti-trust effect) or to sell patents and real estate they hoarded. Bringing them back into the "market".
    5
  6. 1:33 resp. 2:30 2 studies: Urban Institute and Mercato Center (libertarian, Koch Brothers) estimate for single payer 32 / 32,6 trillion USD over the course of 10 year (let's say an average of 3,3 trillion per year). WaPo also: the U.S. already spends NOW: 3,5 trillion USD (the people that are currently not or underinsured may still show up at the spending side - either out of pocket or paid on their behalf * ) In other words - it would cost LESS than now even if one disregards that costs are going to rise disproportionally in the current system (and Mercato made very "conservative" assumptions when it comes to the potential of cost savings). * one can expect many of these cases to have HIGH costs because they might delay the more trivial treatments - but not when they get seriously ill - and then it tends to get costly).
    5
  7. 2:44 What countries spend the most money annually on health care per person in USD US 10,224 and Switzerland USD 8,009 = 78,34 % of the U.S. expenditures (both with private insurers * ) 56,03 % Germany 5,728 53,90 % Sweden 5,511 53,21 % Austria 5,440 52,86 % Netherlands 5,386 47,95 % France 4,902 47,20 % Canada 4,826 46,69 % Belgium 4,774 46,14 % Japan 4717 Source: 2017 Kaiser Family foundation analysis of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data and 2017 U.s. National health Expenditure Data I added the percentage to the graphic - how many percent comparged to the U.S. expenditures. * the only two countries where insurance is left to private for profit insurance companies. Switzerland has high cost of living, they pay good wages overall and have also the reputation of paying medical staff well (even considering the higher wages in general) They have everyone covered, and the system has a very good reputation. Even expensive Switzerland beats the crap out of the U.S. when it comes to healthcare. The Swiss have the referendum system and they at least have some degree of control over the private insurers. That said - single payer is the way to go. It should be noted that it means: all that is spent in the country divided by number of people - now that means that the U.S. includes people that do not even have insurance and do not get healthcare or only insufficient care. Many wealthy countries of Europe are missing or Australia. But the picture is not that different from the World Bank 2014 data I know - Germany is at the higher end of the average - you can expect almost all wealthy !! nations to be in that range. It would be interesting where the U.K. is - they deliver most of the care in the country via the NHS which has been massively defunded over the last 10 years. in 2014 (data World Bank) they had only slightly higher expenditures than Japan.
    5
  8.  @padseven  Well, I live in a country where affordable healthcare for everyone IS considered a right. And that makes it possible to deliver it with little hassle and red tape, low admincosts and in a COST-EFFICIENT manner. The idea of a bankrupcy because of medical bills would be a foreign and exotic idea. people that do not know what is going on in the U.S. could not imagine such a thing. Btw: the advantage of everyone getting the same coverage (even affluent people MUST pay into the system so of course they make use of the coverage they are getting) ? The large numbers of users who get standardized services take care of cost-efficiency, the wealthy make sure there is good quality. They will not put up with crap. And it is not like a party that caters to the wealthy and corporations (to the right or center right) can specialize in going after the system. THEIR voters like the system as well as the voters of all other parties. After WW2 the existing systems were expanded, other nations started them if they did not already have something in place. The "right" of the profiteers to make profits in healthcare is of little concern. To make profit of a service where consumers neither have the expertise to evaluate the complicated service and the costs (even doctors consult other specialists when they get sick) nor do consumers have the possibilty to "avoid buying when it is too expensive for them". healthcare is NOT a service like other products. The "free market" does not work when one group is so much weaker than the profiteers. They CAN be exploited so they will be exploited in the effort to maximize profits. you can either have people dying on the doorsteps of hospitals, or going broke or have the overpriced dysfunctional mess of the U.S. Where the government already has to give insane amounts of subsidies, much more per person than in the cost-efficient single payer countries. Or have single payer systems where everyone has the RIGHT to full coverage at very low costs and the strong shoulder are required to shoulder more of the burden. Those U.S. subsidies prop up the profiteers and dysfunction. Not only does it cost double of what it should cost (literally ! 41 - 56 % of per capita spending - U.K. .... Germany, and most WEALTHY nations are in between, USD 5,000 - 5,500 per person) - the U.S. does not even get the good outcomes for the high price ! All the single payer / universal coverage systems avoid having POWERFUL for-profit players. So they cannot exert undue influence and start gaming the systems (doctor practices, pharmacists). The only exception is Big Pharma which is a large powerful for-profit player. Luckily their products are very standardized and internationally comparable. They may have monopolies on crucial drugs (as long as the patents last), but they want to sell the whole range - so that gives the national public non-profit insurance agencies enough leverage in the price negotiations. (And I assume the national agencies do exchange information, if only behind closed doors. They have no profit motive - so why not help each other out !) All single payer nations have profitable insurance companies. And they never got their hands on healthcare - or only on a very limited portion (supplemental).
    5
  9. I am glad to see that the commenters are not buying it - hope the population in general does not buy the b.s. and the outright deception either. Greetings from Austria where I currently live, I know also Germany - nations enjoying good and reasonably priced healthcare ! (both countries are at the higher end of the average - but of course they beat the U.S. spending per person by miles and have better outcomes. The level of discussion (the propaganda and attempts to disinforma and deceive) in the U.S. mainstream media is MIND BOGGLING. - They show their loyality - to the profiteers.
    5
  10.  Toad Tea  The crowds will not thin when it is about a life and death service like healthcare. Within 2 years of a cancer diagnosis a huge percentage of patients declare bankrupcy (it was a number like 40 or 50 % insane !) . So if the cancer patients could have passed on a modest inheritance to their children or had savings for retirement .... there it goes ! and for every person that suffers that - they have 20 - 50 people who know about it (and fear it could happen to them, too). No, the crowds are not going to thin out. Especially not with an activist-in-chief in the White House.
    4
  11. It costs LESS per person - the way the funding works is different. (I also know the systems of Germany and Austria from experience). Right now the U.S citizens (and partially also their employers) pay very high premiums into a completely overpriced private system with uncertain coverage (or unexpected costs when treatment is needed). I have World Bank Data from a few years ago. USD 9,200 per capita in the U.S., Germany 65 % and U.K. 41 % of that. (most wealthy countries have per capita expenditures of USD 5,000 - 6,000 in that report - Germany USD 5,600, Austria 5,400. Both countries have GOOD services, the private insurance scene is not important (there are historic reasons why they even have them). Affluent people use the public services as well, especially when it comes to the big stuff. And why would they pay extra ? the Public services are good - they are not the countries with the lowest costs (but population is older on average than in the U.S.) but the services are definitely good. The hassle and also the financial worries of paying for insurance or later for treatment are completely unknown in countries with single payer systems. Going broke over medical bills would be a weird concept. you would have to explain it to citizens of Europe or Australia or Japan who do not know the U.S. system how that is even possible. U.K. has even (most of) the doctors practices public, the high public non-profit share of providers may help them with their record setting low expenditures per person. (They have been defunded for 10 years - but with only 50 % of the U.S. expenditures per person the NHS would run like a charm). Even family doctors are employed with the NHS - in most countries they are small companies and have a contract with the non-profit public insurance company. The revenue pays for the costs of the practice and the few staff members - and the profit is the wage of the doctor so to speak. They make a good living - but in single payer systems the ONLY powerful and large for-profit player is Big Pharma. They have very standardized products, prices - or rather the discounts on list prices - are internationally comparable. That gives the public non-profit agencies some leverage to get a well negotiated price list for their insured. (the price list is relatively simple to negotiate. The complexity is regarding what patient will get what drugs - and that complex decision that cannot be monitored by regulators is outside the sphere of "profit". The profit motive is completely irrelevant, the doctors ARE FREE to decide according to medical necessity. So whenever complexity is involved - when not even well intended regulators could protect the consumers from being taken advantage of - the profit motive is taken out of the equation and does not play a role in the system. Especially if the treatment would be costly (when you need insurance the most) the U.S. for-profit players have a huge incentive to NOT pay (or demand unexpected co-pays or do deny coverage for that treatment and wait if you will sue them). I read a story that someone was denied cancer treatment (well the payment for it) because they forgot to mention in the application the acne treatments as teenager. This was not just a mean employee doing overtime to screw an insurance client. That is a SYSTEM: when a person needs costly treatments the insurance company has a lot of employees dedicated to the task to go with a fine comb over the contracts to trick them out of coverage - and for that they need systems, procedures and software ! in place - and departments of office staff (and lawyers !). Likewise the hospitals and doctors need a lot of staff to handle the very complicted billing. And hospitals have to chase the money for unpaid bills. They are legally not allowed to deny help (although they do that as well) - but often the patients that receive emergeny treatment just can't afford to pay out of pocket, not even with a payment plan. (And the ER does nothing for preventive care or chronic diseases). It is not only cruel - it is also counterproductive for the whole society (if you want a healthy workforce and people able to take care of themselves, family, in old age ...) Plus it is costly and inefficient from an administrative point (only for the profiteers it pays off - the bureaucraZy is part of the cost of doing business for them, the just add the costs to the calculation).
    3
  12.  @roguewade6733  ** Size does not matter with a service like healthcare. If anything a larger market usually is an advantage. Well it isn't with healthcare - as logical thinking and the existing numbers will tell you. However: A large country certainly has no disadvantages. All nations scale the needed services up and down per region. - if they run health care cost-efficiently they have ENOUGH providers in every region, but not too many. So all have enough patients and patients have some choice and get the services needed. Nations can control almost all cost factors of healthcare: how they set up the system (single payer !!) the training costs for staff. Only exception: MEDICAL DRUGS. That is something every country has to import and the suppliers are always for-profit players who sometimes have a monopoly. Regarding drugs the large countries may be helpful for the tiny ones. Iceland likely has a pretty good idea what other rich countries get as discount on the list prices. Big Pharma cannot rip them off. (Only the U.S. patients are ripped off because their politicians can be bribed by Big Pharma).
    3
  13.  @roguewade6733  A twist on ECONOMY OF SCALE (usually it means large volumes = lower prices. Not quite with healthcare). - One doctor practice does not serve 3 million patients, one hospital does not serve 10 millions (except when one department is extremely specialized, but then they attract international patients). For GENERAL CARE and easy access you need to have the specialists and GPs and smaller hospitals spread out all over the country. (Driving distance is crucial in emergencies, and it is a quality factor for patients how long they have to drive to get there, with or without public transportation. Or even to visit patients in the hospitals). A country that has remote areas like Canada, or Norway, Japan (the smaller rural islands) or Australia has disadvantages, either they need to run smaller clinics with less efficiency (in the remote areas) AND / OR they have the costs of more air lifts. All countries need a system to bring the severe or specialized cases to the cities where the larger hospitals with more equipment are, that is especially true for the unplannable emergencies. Where I live - Austria - the "country hospitals" provide general care and / or first aid to stablize a patient in an emergency (which may be airlifted later, or stay there, or be airlifted directly to a larger hospital. That decision is made by the doctor that arrives first at the scene. And every mode of tranport is free (ambulance, ambulance with an emergency doctor on board, helicopter transport. Of the patient is in better shape and gets a taxi transport or a refund for using public transportation). But often these generic hospitals have one department with a plannable procedure, like eye surgery, hip replacements, surgery for varicose veins. Almost all hospitals are non-profits and many are the fiscal responsibility of the town, city, state (with subsidies, a town of 8,000 cannot afford a hospital, the rates the insurance agency pays are not that high, all hospitals get extra subsidies from all levels of government. But the tax revenue is redistributed from the federal government to ALL states, so the states with less industry do not have a disadvantage). Those patients with the planned surgeries / treatments are not in a bad shape so a longer tranport does not matter that much (it is a cultural norm that family will bring a patient - but if that is not possible, ambulance tranportation is for free and it is no hassle to get that). These are not the surgeries that make the headlines, but it makes a difference in the life of patients. And they can be quite expensive (varicose veins surgery used to last long, of course they may have improved on that). A lot of the treatments and surgical procedures are repetitive and somewhat generic / humble. Adjusting a person with diabetes correctly is not rocket science, it is quite generic and often needed - but not having that in place will result in high preventable costs (when the inevitable complications manifest), lower life expectancy and much reduced quality of life. Also unnecessary suffering - if those humble basics are neglected.
    3
  14. 0:34 ".....after all healthcare accounts for 1/6th of the economy". - That is generously low: 1/6th would be 16,6666 % - It is over ! 18 % - and that is WAY TOO HIGH. Other nations spend 8 - 11 % of GDP. If the U.S. would have single payer already IMPLEMENTED * - like almost all other countries who have COST-EFFICIENT single payer - then the U.S. would pay HALF = 50 %. Or max 60 % if the U.S. would be really splurging.   * so no transition costs like for retraining obsolete insurance employees, already reaping the benefits of preventive care and a smoothly running system leaning strongly towards NON-PROFIT in numbers ALL that is spent in the country (no matter WHO pays, individuals, employers, charities, gov. subsidies, in form of expected permiums or unplanable co-pays and out of pocket) 2018: 3,5 TRILLION USD in a 20 - 21 trillion USD GDP economy. And it should be in the range of 1,8 trillion to max. !! 2 trillion (for an "expensive" system).
    3
  15. "...the idea [of supporters of single payer is] when the government - not competing companies - run the system, government can do a better job ..." - so WaPo staff has not yet realized that there is NO COMPETITION happening in the U.S. - Which is not surprising: a free market can only exist when the all actors in the game have about the same power. That is not at all the case with healthcare, not even close. Nor is it possible that even well meaning regulators could protect them. The for profit players will always be ahead 3 steps of patients and regulators. Most nations figured that out in the late 1940s, it took Canada and Australia a little longer .... If- IF - the profit motive plays are role when providing goods and services, there must be a free market and customers must have a choice - including the CHOICE NOT TO BUY at all. Else the desire of for-profit companies to make the highest possible profit will inevitably lead to exploitation of the consumers. What makes free market impossible with healthcare (insurance and delivery of services) ? The complexity of the system and the service, the impossibility to delay treatmentor to prepare for what you will need in the future (Will you need cancer treatment ? Which one ? hip replacement ? Emergency surgery because of an accident ? Asthma ? Diabetes ? ) - it will be leveraged against the consumers. With healthcare not buying at all is not an option. You can do that with most other goods and services. Or work around even if it is inconvenient. Live with family if you cannot afford rent, have a simple phone, no smartphone, delay repairing the car, ride a bike, lend a car from a family member or take the bus. It will not cost your life. Treatment and administration (billing !) are very complex, it is often about life and death.  And to make matters worse those costs can be the highest expenditures a regular person will ever have. Higher than buying a home.
    3
  16. Good ol' Noam - may he live healthy and 20 more years !
    3
  17. It was not even too bad - compared to former attempts to muddy the water - Very quickly glossing over the graph with the healthcare costs. Yes technically Sanders is not right - not all countries pay 50 % of the U.S. expenditures per capita - some pay 56 % (Germany at the higher end of the average for a wealthy European country) - while others pay only 48 or 49 %. see my comment where I list the details shown in the slide at 2:44 and then there is expensive Switzerland with also a private insurance system - and still ONLY 78 % of the U.S. per capita expenditures. WaPo would not even explain why it is that there is on principle no free market possible for healthcare, the various reasons why it is such a terrible fit for the free market and why the profit motive is toxic with a service like healthcare. And how every other developed nation realized that they cannot leave it to the private insurers between 1950 and 1970. (Well not the Swiss - they pay for it ... at least their system is GOOD).
    3
  18. 1:25 Yes the Warren wealth tax would be 50 % over 10 years for "households" with 1 billion in assets - but of course they'll increase their fortunes every year so they easily can compensate for or minimize the yearly loss. It will reduce their fortunes somewhat and some will be forced to break up some of the behemoths by selling parts of the empire - which is a good thing. Time to break up many of the monopolies.
    3
  19.  Toad Tea  Major change always came from the grassroots not the political establishment. Civil Rights Movement, the push to end the war in Vietnam, the strong left movements that gave FDR the leverage to push through the New Deal. The push for environmental protection (resulting in the Clean Air and Water Act - of the Nixon admin no less). The public was infuriated when the Supreme Court struck down one (the first) bill of the New Deal. FDR announced the consideration to pack the Supreme Court. So after that they found the minimum wage to be constitutional. That was the right wing Supreme court that ruled that the ban on child labor was unconstitutional - that ruling was before the crash of 1929.
    3
  20. It was a sneaky way to pose the question: "Would you accept a tax to fund healthcare, when you pay zero for private insurance and will have no (relevant) payments ever when getting treatment ?" WaPo and other mouthpieces (on TV for instance jack Tapper who also played dumb) have been called out - last time they announced the increased government costs (partially coming from new taxes) while conveniently "forgetting" that other costs (private insurance, co-pays) would fall sideways. And that even the Mercato study (that is very conservative regarding the savings potential) said there would be 2 trillion in savings possible over 10 years. Or in other words - if the system goes on like now it would cost 2 trillion more.
    3
  21. it is not even true 1/6th is 16,666 percent - it is 18 % plus ! While other rich nations spend 8 - 11 percent of GDP.
    2
  22. The subsidies the private-for profits system gets - under ACA more than ever - have to compensate for the costs to administrate that insanity. Plus of course the profits for shareholders. To even keep the dysfunctional U.S. system afloat a lot of government funding must be added . Under Medicare For All citizens would pay more under the title: "taxes" or "wage deductions" or whatever you want to call it. But they would pay ZERO in healthcare ínsurance plans = NET a win per person. And there is so much waste going on that the extra subsidies should not be higher than they are now - at least after the mess is cleaned up - there might be some transition costs (backlog from too little care too late, or the costs of retraining the people that adminstrated all the red tape). For instance I hear time and again that people cannot afford their insuline. Do you have any idea about the financial consequences for the medical system when diabetes is not well taken care of ?? It is not only the preventable suffering and the too early deaths. It will also COST a lot until these patients meet their premature end - and society does not even get the positive outcomes for these expenditures. And the damage is already being done - so expect higher costs to show up when the U.S.finally gets a system that is worthy of a First World country.  Single payer systems do have a very streamlined adminstration - a lot of cost savings come from that. Especially if one trap is avoided: still a lot of private for profit insurance coverage PLUS a public option (allegedly as solution for the transition phase) PLUS Medicare For All for certain age groups. 10 % of the patients cause 90 % of the costs (age plays a huge role in that - age AND high risk patients). If the private insureres cannot comletely prevent MfA - the next best thing for them is to keep the pool of 25 - 55 years old. They would cleanse that pool of course of all high risk patients. Those will be shoved over to the public agency - under the "public option" that is now proposed for instance in the MfA plan of Booker and Harris, or if "many paths can lead to the goal of better healthcare". No, no - all other nations have been doing single payer and most at least for 70 years. Golly gee if only we could do an experiment with hundreds of millions of people and for decades (and many nations doing their own version of it while following certain principles).  If - IF - that sneaky undermining of MfA goes through - all the high cost patients will land with the public agencies, the privat for profit insurers will keep the good patients - always with the option to kick them out too if they turn out not to be so good (and they WILL find ways to do that whether it is legal or not). a) One beauty of that private-insurance-friendly version is that their package for the cherrypicked age group cannot be internationally compared. After all no other nation is so foolish to do it that way, so there is no way to benchmark b) that makes the public agency look costly, so it is easy to badmouth them. It also makes it easier to defund the system (try that when 95 % of the country get the same treatment in the same facilites). When the public services are not as good as they could be (see Europe where they ARE good in the wealthy countries) - the affluent people have no choice but to still buy private insurance. c) with a cherrypicked pool it is easy for the private insurers to offer rates that look better (if you get rid of the small number of patients that cause a lot of the costs). And if "good" patients turn out to cause more costs they will find ways to annoy them so much that the patients will take refuge with the public option. So the insurers can sneak in profits and the (still) healthy insured will get the impression that private insurance is not so bad after all. It is helpful for the profiteers that only a smaller segment in the age group 25 - 55 will have the very bad healthcare events, most will stay relatively healthy, and as long they have no way of knowing what their insurance is worth. - that helps with the divide and conquer strategy. It dilutes the power and incentive of the voters to demand ONE good and streamlined solution for all. The public option (proposal of Booker and Harris) poses as MfA - but it is a covert gift to the insurance industry. And it will still need a lot of administration. so it does not leverage one of the major cost-saving potentials - a very streamlined admintration. The Real News had a numbers cruncher and a Harvard doctor on - speaker of a group of doctors for single payer. (Medicare for All would save the taxpayer 1,5 trillion USD). You should watch it The cost savings will ALSO take care of the currently uninsured or underinsured - the savings should be at least high enough to add them without extra costs to the system: the uninsured do get some treatments in the U.S. . But often it is too little too late - and then in the most costly form imaginable: in the ER. Society gets the worst of both worlds so to speak - the bad healthcare outcomes and the high costs. Also consider the costs for the hospitals trying to get at least partial payments from the patients - again administrative costs that do nothing to make the DELIVERY OF CARE better. I read that 65 % of the healthcare expenditures of the U.S. come already from the government. That includes of course Medicare. The most costs for healthcare come in the last years of life and Medicare covers people from the age of 65 on - so it is not as bad as it sounds - and people paid into it so it is not a "handout" from the government. but those 65 % pay for overpriced services. Too costly drugs. And unnecessary red tape.
    2
  23. TheRealNews had a numbers cruncher (economist) and a Harvard doctor on - speaker of a group of doctors for single payer. (Medicare for All would save the taxpayer 1,5 trillion USD). You should watch it, it is not long and on the site of TRN they do not only have the embedded youtube video - they usually also have transcripts if you are pressed for time.
    2
  24. What was the fiscal plan for the war in Afghanistan, Iraq - or the recent tax cut for the rich and highly profitable businesses ?? What was the fiscal plan to bail out the banks or to compensate for the costs of the economic crisis caused by the banksters (read profit-chasing Capitalists). Every other nation can pull off single payer healthcare for less costs per person than the U.S. and with better outcomes. There are two major cost savers: drug prices and streamlined admin: the latter may not play out right away (in the transition phase hospitals and doctors STILL have to deal with the private insurers. And the increasingly unnecessary red-tape-administrators will have to be retrained (the MfA proposals have considerable budgets for that). But the private and public agencies could negotiate the drug prices RIGHT AWAY (and even together to make things at least transparent and streamlined there). - Big Pharma hates the idea - they would have the situation in the U.S. like in all other countries then. Now the public agencies are not even allowed to negotiate. The private insurers chose not to have a battle of giants with Big Pharma. They agree to peacefully co-exist - and rather take it out on the consumers/patients and they extract money from the government. That is typical when you have oligopolies on both sides. Sure, large corporations will usually squeeze their suppliers. But when the few large suppliers are equally powerful and the details are complex, so squeezing them could turn out to be a lot of work in the complex "market" - they will abstain from the hassle and will find other cozy arrangements. There might be some transition costs - considering the current dysfunction and the expertise of the big for-profit players to game the system (currently with the help of legal bribes for politicians). Or maybe the U.S. is simply incapable of doing it right .... as only wealthy nation on the globe. The MfA proposal of Sanders is a compromise already (only till age 25 and from 55 on in the first round). But that means there is a transition phase, and they can get the bugs out of the system before all the country is covered. And there is time to train more nurses and to start training more doctors.
    2
  25. the chick DOES understand - she is paid to lie in a sophisticated manner.(or they think it is sophisticated). Good to see the commenters are not buying it. I wonder WHY WaPo thinks that kind of propaganda still works. They must be desperate !
    2
  26. it is not ONLY Big Healthcare that is really worried about the talk about single payer, and Medicare for All, and the public being better informed. WALLSTREET likes for-profit healthcare as well (so forget about congress, most representatives are in the pocket of one or the other. And if not - they are getting the pressure form the party leadership ! both parties, which want to continue to get those donations). Back in the day the industry, politicians and mainstream media colluded to never ever have a meaningful SUBSTANTIATED discussion. The free flow of information on the internet AND the Sanders campaign broke the grip of the gatekeepers.
    2
  27. What went wrong with little Edie. and what happened to Grandpa ?? P.S. saw a recent video of Jimmy Carter, the building houses initiative. 93 years, then you have the face you deserve - he has aged well.
    2
  28. Well, Kelly showed restraint - he did not facepalm - lol - and how often did Trump say "protect" and "Russia".
    2
  29.  @bosstowndynamics5488  public non-profit agencies are middle men between patients and the providers (hospitals and doctors) too - and they do an excellent job at very low admin costs - in all other countries. They work for the patients AND for the common good - not for shareholders. They have almost monopoly power as buyers of services on behalf of the insured. Which is a good thing. Monopolies by profiteers = exploitation of the consumers. Monopoly of healthcare insurance by public non-profits: They use the very much needed negotiating power against big pharma,. Or think in the U.S. with for-profit hospital chains ! (most other countries have non-profit hospitals. And if a hospital is "private" only and for-profit - that is the rare exception and they certainly cannot incorporate as chains. Which gives them undue power and the finances to rig the system to lobby etc.
    2
  30. well put: and: The WaPo is the capitalist version of Pravda. lol
    2
  31. Exactely ! Did you notice the phrase "households with more than one billion in assets". Some household, we don't have them in the neighbourhood. - It will of course force them to sell off some companies, real estate, patents, art ... and will help to break up some of the monopolies. (the shares could be accepted by the government instead of money in order to form worker owned co-ops Mondragon style. That is how they should have bailed out big auto and the banks).
    2
  32.  @johnchambers2996  She was a tenured professor at Harvard - She may have made the same money before.
    2
  33. WaPo did not disappoint - fishy and missing the target as always ! (well almost always, they did a fact check on Medicare for all in spring 2019 that was not too bad. Not completley correct of course, but also not utterly useless).
    1
  34. Jeff Bezoes owns Amazon - and the Washington Post. Need I say more ?
    1
  35.  @Wardell43  Facts matter: the tax cuts ALREADY added more than 1 trillion to the debt in 2018 (1 trn more than projected before the tax cuts were passed). The INCREASE in debt is slowing down. Well it better be that way - considering how insane it is. Note that Trump went on that borrowing spree not to boost a slumping economy or to invest into the future. The tax cuts benefit the rich. The companies gladly took them, if they invest at all they do so in Mexico and China (outsourcing continued, haven't you noticed !) Or they manipulate their stock value with stock buybacks (top management loves that). Many regular people NOW already pay MORE in taxes. * Over 10 years 83 % of the tax cuts go to the rich - but the Republican immediately after the tax cuts started talking about cutting SS and they already defunded Medicare. They toned it down but just wait until after the 2020 elections if they keep the presidency and gain majorities in Congress and Senate. Only the tax cuts for the rich and for big biz are permanent. 83 % for the rich and the effects of the increased debt and deficit will hit normal people if the Republicans and Trump get their way. * Many tax deduction (that benefit normal people, not the loopholes for the rich and big biz) were eliminate. Citizens cannot deduct the local and state taxes like it used to be. If they had to pay local taxes = proper funding for schools etc. in the past it reduced the base from which to calculate the income tax. Some got already a shock this year. That hits of course blue states and communities more because they tend to ask their affluent and middle class to chime in to provide better services. THAT is a stimulus for the local economy. These services provide jobs and incomes at the local level. The federal government foregoes some tax, and it helps especially in lower income areas.
    1
  36.  @redfestivabo259  I do not need to pack my bags, lucky me I live in a country with single payer. Where the profiteers are not allowed to exploit the population in an area where the free market cannot work on principle. Also how nice of you to make specific points what you disagree with in my very specific statements (which I published because I have insights that the average U.S. citizens does not have PROFITTING from a single payer system). Anyway: have nice holidays.
    1
  37.  Hungry Hippo  the "multi" payer part is not relevant. I live in Austria and I claim they have single payer. Now the reality is that they have several public non-profit insurance agencies. But they all have the typical traits of single payer: the mandate to participate, the employers or workers do not get to chose what their insurer is, they are assigned to it (either per state, plus certain profession. And duplicative coverage is outlawed (the private insurers cannot offer coverage if the public agency covers it. So you can go to a private doctor, but you likely have to pay out of pocket). The overwhelming part of the population is covered by one of the state agencies - and their rates are determined by law (and not much different for railway, civil servants, etc.). If you have more than 500 USD wage epr month you pay 3,8 % of the wage, the yearly cap is 2,400 USD (that means a wage of 60k). The employers must match that. So it does not matter which agency is responsible for you and your family. There are historic reasons why they had 9 for each state and then also some for certain professions, like farmers, smaller entrepreneurs, railway, .... ). The agencies cooperate regarding drug price negotiations, likely software development. It does not matter for patients where they go to the doctor. Most will remain in their state (else the agencies handle that among themselves. among states and provinces or even the agencies of other nations. EU citizens will be treated like natives in other countries when they need the services in another country. As tourists or on business trips). The rates in the capital Vienna for doctor practices are higher than in other states (what the agency pays doctors for their services). (slightly and the other agencies know of those rates). So for all intents and purposes: it is single payer even though the middleman is more than one administrative entity. The same applies for the other countries (it is different in Germany, but that does not help them with costs. They were on the frontier in 1884 starting an universal system and it has some quirks). Even the centralized NHS of he U.K. has "sub divisions". The Scottish part fares better because they get additional local funding (oil revenue) while the English part has been hit by 10 years of defunding. There is something to be said for having adminstrative sub units, and it hardly adds administrative costs (but allows for some bench marking). Those "multi payer" agencies (single payer really !) are usually in charge of one province or state, that seems to work well in different countries as long as the federal government evens out the funding and as long as they closely COOPERATE. Part of the funding comes from wage related contributions, and the economic power house states do better than states that are rural and have little industry. But the cooperation between the public agencies is so close that it amounts to single payer, they certainly do not compete with each other. They share information, they work together, they even help each other out with cross transfer of money. Vienna got a budget problem a few years ago, the federal gov. did not want to stand in for their minus, so the other agencies - if they had good surplus were asked to chime in. Now they are self-governed entities (for instance the goverment cannot determine or fire their directors) - but the wage related contributions are affordable to be acceptable for the voters - so a lot of money comes from general tax revenue. So the "rich" agencies (in states with a lot of industry) have to play nice with the government too ;) - The agency of Vienna paid higher rates for doctors with their own practice, to a degree that can be justified (higher costs for a practice compared to rural areas or smaller cities) - but they were told by the other agencies that they had to overhaul their rates and clean up their act. So some benchmarking going on.
    1
  38. Not "naive" - intentionally misleading !
    1
  39. No, the plan which Hillary Clinton promoted as First Lady was still using PRIVATE INSURANCE with budgets (caps). So the Clintons would have played nice with the for-profit insurance industry. That is NOT the plan of Sanders now (he supported it - he was a member of Congress that avoided fundraising from the Big Donors, he was not a member of the in crowd. But that was the "best" plan put forward at that time and he helped promote it.
    1
  40. Switzerland after WW2 continued to use private for-profit insurance companies. (unlike almost all other nations, most went the single payer route). They pay much more today, the typical rich single payer nation spend 5,000 - 5,500 USD per person per year. Switzerland 8,000, the U.S. 10,240 OECD 2017 data. At least the Swiss system is excellent, everyone has coverage (low income people get subsidies from the Kantons) and they pay medical staff well.. And then there is the U.S. with USD 10,240. And not even everybody covered. Hassle, bankrupcies, 40,000 additional deaths - and worse outcomes than most rich nations.
    1
  41. Yoho doesn't even have the guts to stand by his remark, since she got privileged time I assume there was something going on behind the scenes, his party pressured him to do a non-apology. - I would assume that kind of behavior is not appreciated in the Capitol.
    1
  42. The billionaires also make yearly gains - so while the added up wealth tax over 10 years might be impressive - so are the gains they are making. We will not have to open a GoFundMe for them, that's for sure. Some will have to sell companies from their empires, or patents, or hoarded real estate - so it has an anti-trust effect and breaks up the monopolies.
    1
  43. I live in Europe in a country with single payer - care to comment on the LIES and MISREPRESENTATIONS of the video ?
    1
  44. One problem: one room apartment 1600 USD - and that is on the Democrats (who happen to run a lot of towns, not that the Republicans would be any better). It is not only in the U.S. the local city politicians usually gladly allow foreign investors to price out everyone out of the market - in New York, in Sydney, in San Francisco, in Paris, ... And of course the domestic landlord class that extracts rent - because public housing has been neglected.
    1
  45. Petty about Yang's claim that only 2 countries ar not having paid maternity / parenting leave: the U.S. and Papua Neuguinea (which is poor, a developing country). So which are the other 3 countries ? I'll make a guess - Libya ? Somalia ? Uzbekistan ? - how about letting us know. Pete's claim. - I did not check out the court decision, but the settlement included a fine of 2 million USD for the president of the U.S. - Yes that should be reason to step down. Never mind the details. The court says: The funds eventually reached the destination. - after public pressure, eventually.
    1
  46. Yes, and .... Did Waters say to insult them ? You are not welcome and hassle members of the Trump admin are not insults. And: these would be citizens, not elected representatives that should avoid such language at least out of respect for the office and the house.
    1
  47. Do you have no shame was also not an insult. - the Trump admin is a special kind of craven. So they deserve to be hassled, but I would also no use names on them.
    1
  48. Yep, because Trump had such sophisticated, well thought out, costed economic plans in the 2016 race (or now). Remember the discussion of the costs of the wall and how to fund it ??
    1
  49. No personal investment of Merkel ! The post that the former Chancellor Schroeder got has nothing to do with the current government, and he was from the other party and is out of office since 2005 - he was in charge to refuse participation in the Iraq war, one of the things he got right). Northstream is an international project of energy companies in Europe and Russia Excellent idea - remove the bases, the European "leaders" play the poodles for the U.S. - but the population does not buy into the narrative. At least not all of them. The population would likely be glad to see the U.S. soldiers gone. Russia is no threat, no one needs to "protect" Europe or Germany
    1
  50. Europe has more than 530 million people (U.S. 325 million) and enough technology - they can easily DEFEND themselves and produce their own equipment as well. And that does not need to cost 2 % of GDP. Not even close. Russia has 70 bn USD as yearly budget (or less, that figure is from a few years agao) - the U.S. has 680 bn - but not for "defense" The only thing that is defended: the campaign contributions, the profit of the M.I.C. - and that's the only sector where industrial jobs are NOT outsourced.
    1