More democratic leaders are backing Bernie' medicare for all

[Rob Base 2.0]

Bernie Sanders' medicare for all plan is gaining some democratic political support according to this story

www.yahoo.com/gma/democrats-continue-line-behind-bernie-sanders-health-care-232205359--abc-news-topstories.html

[grumpyhermit]

I really wish politicians would stop with the flashy, time-wasting, grandstanding gestures that will never go anywhere. To me, this seems just like the constant Republican votes to repeal the ACA when everyone knew it didn't stand a chance in hell of ever getting passed.

[grumpyhermit]

Sept 13, 2017 9:32:07 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well, you have a point GH.  At the same time, I am very happy to see more politicians acknowledge single payer as a goal.  I really see this being more that than anything else, as well as also being a wedge point to use in the political battles to come in 2018.

I hope so, as I am personally a fan of the single payer concept. But he offers no funding details, and without that bit of information, it just seems like blowing so much hot air.

I also don't think a four year phase in is going to be enough if they are proposing to totally decimate the current health insurance industry. I think we need to move toward single payer, but we also need to make sure we minimize the financial impact of destabilizing a massive economic pillar.

[Gardening Grandma]

Sept 13, 2017 14:43:46 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Sept 13, 2017 9:32:07 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well, you have a point GH.  At the same time, I am very happy to see more politicians acknowledge single payer as a goal.  I really see this being more that than anything else, as well as also being a wedge point to use in the political battles to come in 2018.

I hope so, as I am personally a fan of the single payer concept. But he offers no funding details, and without that bit of information, it just seems like blowing so much hot air.

I also don't think a four year phase in is going to be enough if they are proposing to totally decimate the current health insurance industry. I think we need to move toward single payer, but we also need to make sure we minimize the financial impact of destabilizing a massive economic pillar.

As much as I despise the health insurance industry and want to see it decimated, I have to agree with this point.

[bean29]

I consider myself a Democrat, and want to see more of a Single Payer System adopted in the USA, but I avoided this thread for a long time...Bernie Sander's health care proposals at the election were unrealistic and too costly to ever be implemented.

The first thing we should do is put some sort of controls on Prescription Drug Prices in America. Then we should talk about the Dealth Panel issue that Republicans used to torpedo parts of the ACA.  Some life saving measures are just too costly and experimental to be available at the taxpayer's expense. 

[grumpyhermit]

I just think we need more details. It's easy to say "Medicare for all!" It's much harder to present a plan that makes it feasible. It's the same gripe I had when DT was campaigning with his "best ever health insurance plan ever", but had no real details.

I also think they need to address things like the Hyde Amendment, and what impact that will have if all healthcare is essentially government healthcare. I know the DNC doesn't want to make abortion a "litmus test" for funding potential candidates, but these types of things could have far reaching consequences for a lot of people.

[thyme4change]

This feels like the GOP showing their muscles that they were repealing, until it became time to actually do some heavy lifting, and it all fell apart.

[happyhoix]

Sept 13, 2017 15:01:34 GMT -5 bean29 said:

I consider myself a Democrat, and want to see more of a Single Payer System adopted in the USA, but I avoided this thread for a long time...Bernie Sander's health care proposals at the election were unrealistic and too costly to ever be implemented.

The first thing we should do is put some sort of controls on Prescription Drug Prices in America. Then we should talk about the Dealth Panel issue that Republicans used to torpedo parts of the ACA.  Some life saving measures are just too costly and experimental to be available at the taxpayer's expense. 

This, plus I think they should begin with giving people the ability to buy into medicare if they want to. Figure out what per person cost will help offset the program cost, maybe do a sliding scale based on income.

This would help self employed people, or owners of small companies who have very high insurance costs due to 1 or 2 very sick people in the plan. Eventually, if the price is good and people are satisfied with the coverage, more and more companies would switch to paying into medicare for their employees rather than paying for private insurance, until, at some point in the future, everyone but the 1% would get coverage that way.

 

[giramomma]

Sept 13, 2017 15:01:34 GMT -5 bean29 said:

The first thing we should do is put some sort of controls on Prescription Drug Prices in America.

I agree with this. But it's not going to happen, right now at least.

Fundamentally, the point of business is to make money. We, then, as a nation have to decide which industries we approve of making more money, and which industries should make less money. I don't think we can get there right now.

And then we need to sort out the ramifications, of that, as well. Who is going to invest in a company that won't have high enough returns? And how will that effect business? How will the loss of income from investment AND profits be mitigated in some way?

Maybe the answer is to pass a law saying that all pharma companies have to be turned into non-profits? The primary purpose of non-profits are not to make the owners money. Then perhaps things like price controls would be more palatable. And then we could pass other sorts of regulations to bring drug costs down..like rationing how many new drugs can be developed and what kind of drugs need to be developed, as well as dealing with issues like advertising.

If a company is a non profit, then as well, then they could be subjected to laws/regulations making actual costs more transparent to consumers.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

And then we need to sort out the ramifications, of that, as well. Who is going to invest in a company that won't have high enough returns?

That's the problem with vaccines and creating new antibiotics.  Both are insanely complicated and expensive to create but the profit margins on both are very low. There is no incentive to create them because it's not going to make shareholders happy.

It's way more profitable to create something like Botox and then figure out as many ways as you can market it as possible.   The more people using it on a regular basis the more money for shareholders.

[bean29]

Sept 14, 2017 8:55:38 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Sept 13, 2017 15:01:34 GMT -5 bean29 said:

The first thing we should do is put some sort of controls on Prescription Drug Prices in America.

I agree with this. But it's not going to happen, right now at least.

Fundamentally, the point of business is to make money. We, then, as a nation have to decide which industries we approve of making more money, and which industries should make less money. I don't think we can get there right now.

And then we need to sort out the ramifications, of that, as well. Who is going to invest in a company that won't have high enough returns? And how will that effect business? How will the loss of income from investment AND profits be mitigated in some way?

Maybe the answer is to pass a law saying that all pharma companies have to be turned into non-profits? The primary purpose of non-profits are not to make the owners money. Then perhaps things like price controls would be more palatable. And then we could pass other sorts of regulations to bring drug costs down..like rationing how many new drugs can be developed and what kind of drugs need to be developed, as well as dealing with issues like advertising.

If a company is a non profit, then as well, then they could be subjected to laws/regulations making actual costs more transparent to consumers.

I don't know about that, I am sure I also hold stock in Pharma companies in my 401K holdings.  But, I do think we should pass some sort of law that Americans can not be charged more that people in other countries are charged for the same drugs.  Right now Americans are subsidizing drug purchases for the rest of the world. 

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I think a huge difference could be made if we actually enforced monopoly laws.   There are only a handful of big players and everything passes thru them.  It's like an hour glass with academic research at the top and consumers at the bottom.   All that sand has to pass thru the teeny tiny middle space that is the pharmacuetical industry.  

The makers of Epi pen could jack the price up 300% because they could.  Since it's a life saving product you can't say "Nope, Ill pass" like you would on on an overpriced blender.  There is no other company allowed to manufacture them so it's not like you can shop around either.   Companies aren't going to offer it for less out of the goodness of their hearts.   The only incentive there would be to change the price is if they knew they'd lose money to a competitor if they didn't.

There are also a lot of orphan diseases that will never get a treatment/cure because there is no money in manufacturing it.   Then there is the issue with vaccine and antibiotic manufacturing.

[Phoenix84]

Sept 13, 2017 9:32:07 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Well, you have a point GH.  At the same time, I am very happy to see more politicians acknowledge single payer as a goal.  I really see this being more that than anything else, as well as also being a wedge point to use in the political battles to come in 2018.

It'll be interesting to see.  There's a civil war going on in the Democratic Party right now, between the moderates and the progressives.  The moderates want to try to expand the base, while the progressives want to move the party to the left with policies like single payer.  In the eyes of the progressives, the reason Hillary lost was she tried to be everything to everyone.  In the eyes of the moderates, the farther left the party moves the more voters you'll lose in the middle, and even further alienate middle America.

It is also kind of a touchy subject because the ACA was Obama's signature achievement.  I doubt many democrats want to begin the work of dismantling it any time soon.  Plus, the ACA cost the democrats big, they're arguably still paying for it. 

The democrat primaries are going to be interesting to watch in 2018 and 2020.

[grumpyhermit]

Sept 18, 2017 12:17:43 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Sept 18, 2017 11:48:33 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

It'll be interesting to see.  There's a civil war going on in the Democratic Party right now, between the moderates and the progressives.  The moderates want to try to expand the base, while the progressives want to move the party to the left with policies like single payer.  In the eyes of the progressives, the reason Hillary lost was she tried to be everything to everyone.  In the eyes of the moderates, the farther left the party moves the more voters you'll lose in the middle, and even further alienate middle America.

It is also kind of a touchy subject because the ACA was Obama's signature achievement.  I doubt many democrats want to begin the work of dismantling it any time soon.  Plus, the ACA cost the democrats big, they're arguably still paying for it. 

The democrat primaries are going to be interesting to watch in 2018 and 2020.

I have a newsflash for you, there is ALWAYS a battle in the Democratic Party for control between factions.  Sometimes I guess it comes more to the light of day for outsiders like you, but it is not new, different or unusual in any way.  
Yes, the ACA cost the Democrats big, but that is OK.  The Civil Rights Movement cost the Democrats big too, but it was the "right thing to do", finally.  As LBJ observed, the Dems lost the South because of it.  Both were short term losses for long term right.

One of the biggest gripes about the Democratic Party, from party members, is that they are often too busy fighting each other, to get anything done. So no, not exactly a new development.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Both parties ripping themselves apart over health care goes back to JFK.   Bill O'Riley talked quite a bit about that in Killing Kennedy.   I had no idea the debate went back that far, the way the media portrays it you'd think that the issue was created solely by Obama and Trump.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Beautiful.

As Trump excoriates socialism- with specific examples- at the U.N., American Democrats embrace it.


“The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented but that socialism has been faithfully implemented,” 

2020 is shaping up nicely.

"From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.



Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems. America stands with every person living under a brutal regime. Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action. All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests and their well-being, including their prosperity."

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 18, 2017 12:35:54 GMT -5 grumpyhermit said:

Sept 18, 2017 12:17:43 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

I have a newsflash for you, there is ALWAYS a battle in the Democratic Party for control between factions.  Sometimes I guess it comes more to the light of day for outsiders like you, but it is not new, different or unusual in any way.  
Yes, the ACA cost the Democrats big, but that is OK.  The Civil Rights Movement cost the Democrats big too, but it was the "right thing to do", finally.  As LBJ observed, the Dems lost the South because of it.  Both were short term losses for long term right.

One of the biggest gripes about the Democratic Party, from party members, is that they are often too busy fighting each other, to get anything done. So no, not exactly a new development. 

Actually, the war in the Democratic Party is between the far left American socialists and the America-hating subversives that want global socialism. Alternatively, you could say between Bernie Sanders socialism and the Star Spangled Banner hating Colin Kaepernick wing- between the politicos and the domestic terrorist wing.

[dondub]

Kaepernik wing? Do you mean those forces fighting against the paranoid, extremist, right wing, phony patriot, false Christian, symbolically lynching, fascist racists fueled by the KKK media of Hannity, Limbaugh, and Levin?

www.seattletimes.com/author/jerry-large/

Many Americans seem to have persuaded themselves that discrimination is a thing of the past, according to a Yale study out this week. It’s a...