Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Bernie (And A Canadian) Explain Why Medicare-For-All Is The Answer" video.

  1. I assume that car insurance would also go down in costs - mandatory insurance COVERAGE where I live is 7,6 million Euro, but people have often 10 - 20 millions (after catastrophic tunnel fires in Switzerland and France the gov. increased the mandatory sum - did not cost much it is such are unlikely scenario). The most costly thing (apart from the damage youself suffer) is not if your wreck another car or a crash into a house or damage other property. It is the cost for medical payment or disability pension and ongoing medical treatment if you harm another person.
    3
  2. A UBI does not help you when you do not even do the homework on healthcare. Yes that is a yesterday's problem. all other nations made their decision after WW2 (people over profit in healthcare). Not the fault of Sanders that the nation is 70 years behind. Same with public non-profit childcare !
    2
  3. free at the point of delivery.
    1
  4. I guess if the rollout goes well they can shorten the time. a president Sanders certainly would push for it if that is possible. The first stage is till 25 and from 55 on. The private insurers already do not have the most costly group (plus 65) then they do not have the plus 55 year olds as well. So Sanders could push for the private insurers to offer better packages. It would also help if drug prices come down, that could happen immediately, congress just have to undo the law that bans Medicare from negotiating. And let the private insurers have the exact same price. (the pharmy industry would riot). The profits not pocketed but used to bring down the costs of the packages.  Sanders went forth and back with the negotiations (I remember he announced in early 2017 he would come up with a bill and it took some months longer than expected. Likely incl. some provisions so other representatives would co-sponsor it). I guess they met on the 4 years. - it is possible that many more people WILL start seeing a doctor. Of course doctors will waste less time on admin. - when Medicare was introduced there was not an uptick in doctor's visits. Poorer folks used it more, wealthier people a little less. But then the population on average was younger (I guess) and people were healthier. It does not take as long to train nurses - but when they need more doctors .....
    1
  5. If Sanders is smart they find an agreeement with Cuba, helping them fund medical training of doctors. There doctors could be trained much cheaper and any USD in foreign aid would go a longer way. Or U.S. citizens could be trained in Cuba. Unifying standards so they can practice in the U.S. and Cubans can come on a Visa to the U.S.
    1
  6. You do not want to imitate the German system, if anything go for a single payer or even better for the system of the U.K. the NHS that runs even the doctor practices and the hospitals *. Not realistic to happen because of the structures and culture that already exists in the U.S., but it would be the most cost-efficient. * in most countries the doctor practices are like small companies that have a contract with a non-profit (public) insurance agency. Hospitals are also often public or private non-profits and are often run by towns, cities, states. Sometimesrun by churches, wich may be even allowed to make a small profit (another historic relict. they come from a charitable tradition even before the Welfare reform). Hospitals whoever manages them, do not compete, but there is benchmarking. (if towns runs a smaller unit for general care for the area they get financial help from the state and the federal government. In healthcare there are a few areas where the huge costs manifest: insurance, medical drugs, hospitals and doctor practices. They are either non-profits, (insurance, many hospitals) or for-profit but with limited power (hospitals and doctor practices are not allowed to organize in chains. They have a professional representation to negotiate on their behalf, but cannot merge into a company with a profit motive and undue power and access to resources, like lawyers, lobbyists. The only powerful FOR-PROFIT actor is the Pharma industry. Their products are very standardized and internationally comparable. The hospitals must have a contract with the single payer agency (in Austria for instance, well there are 16 agencies - historically grown, don't ask, it is still single payer) or in Germany with the many non-profit insurers for the mandatory insurance (covering 90 % of the population. 10 % are covered by a full private insurance - not supplemental- again historically grown). There are no hospitals that do not have contracts with the non-profit insurers (all of them) they would not get enough patients. I know the system of Germany and Austria. Germany got very basic care in 1883 / 1884 with the Great Welfare Reform (and grandfathered a lot of existing solutions in at the time). The early adopters often have some historic "baggage" and some quirks. In 1930 Germany had 7000 non-profit insurers, that number is down to 109 and of those 84 are non-profits set up by large corporation (for their staff and they can open up the pool for other people if they want). That means 25 other non-profits - most are started by an insurance corporation. There have been a lot of mergers and the government wants to bring the number of ALL non-profits down to 40 - 50 in total. Later adopters could build on the German experiences. I must say the Brits did it the smart way. (USD 4,250 per person versus 5,700 in Germany, versus 10,240 in the U.S. spending per person in 2017). If the system is not too bad usually the quirks are incorporated and there is not enough pressure to change (it is a big system now after all, and someone is always negatively affected or fears to be and there is resistance). Most nations got universal healthcare or single payer after WW2 and often small decisions shaped the system over the decades (when more people got older and medicine got more capable but also more expensive and elaborate). So the systems in all nations had their own evolution.
    1
  7.  @j_ll7  2017 healthcare spending per person in Canada approx. 4,800, U.S. 10,240 per person (every ! person in the country, even if they are healthy or uninsured). - in Canada they organize the healthcare systems per province so some richer provinces might do better, the number is an average for ALL that is spent in Canada. Cure if they have some (not very critical) problems: let spending INCREASE to at least HALF of the U.S. spending per person Canada is on the lower end of spending per person for a wealthy country. Germany is on the higher end of the specturm with USD 5,700. The average is 5,420. And then there is the UK with 4,240 USD (only 41 % of the U.S.) but they have been defunding their NHS over the course of 10 years and the NHS has no reserves in times of higher demand (like the winter crisis, when they have many cases of flu etc). But with 50 % of the U.S. spending they would be doing just great.
    1