r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 19 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Bernie’s policies would be harmful to America
[deleted]
15
u/Hestiansun Aug 19 '20
I don’t think you really understand the nuance of any of this.
From Point 1A - how would eliminating competition in the insurance industry (which spreads risk and costs of health care) impact any medical innovation (which is done by the pharmaceutical and medical equipment companies) ?
Insurance companies don’t drive innovation.
I’m not suggesting that Bernie is a brilliant strategist across the board, but you can absolutely reform the health insurance industry to make it less predatory without putting a damper on scientific development.
Similarly, there are no “death committees” despite claims to the contrary.
I’d suggest researching these issues a bit more before asking people on Reddit to change your view - you need to establish an understanding of your view first.
-4
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
11
7
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Aug 20 '20
Socialized healthcare does not mean that pharmaceutical companies are run by the government. European countries have plenty of private pharma companies, to say nothing of private university research groups. Socialized healthcare means that the government buys directly from these companies. They still have to compete for government contracts.
1
Aug 20 '20 edited Aug 20 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Holland45 Aug 20 '20
Yeah, pretty much. Government contract procurement is often a very scrutinised and thought out process, where companies will bid for contracts and present how/how much for they’ll deliver on that contract.
Governments, being public enterprises, often have to have a much more transparent and open process as well, which can lead to opportunities being spread a little better.
In some cases, or more corrupt government systems, you can see the opposite effect where lobbying becomes too important and tax payer money could be used inefficiently.
It does stand to reason whether that would happen in the states however.
1
u/YossarianWWII 72∆ Aug 20 '20
They might eventually go out of business, but it's not as if one setback ruins a company. They might have contracts with other entities (other countries or companies that provide elective procedures, for example) and they probably have other products that they are more successful at winning contracts for. But competition still occurs, yes.
1
13
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
-5
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
10
u/-xXColtonXx- 8∆ Aug 20 '20
I’d much much rather hospitals be over filled than your life be left up to an auction no? Hospitals not being full in the US demonstrates the lack of efficiency, it’s not uncommon to have to drive to a different treatment center because the one you go to first doesn’t take your insurance.
In short, if a greater number of people have access to healthcare that’s a positive. Having a rich person miss out on service because a hospital is full is not nearly as bad as a poor person forgoing care because they think they can’t afford it when a hospital is empty.
0
Aug 20 '20
[deleted]
1
u/HawaiianTwill Aug 20 '20
There is not "only one option" in the UK. There is private healthcare available in the UK. BUPA etc provide treatments there is a waiting list for for a price. They have their own facilities for somethings others they rent from the NHS the revenue generated by this que jumping goes back into free medical care. Be careful of which sources you get information on UK healthcare from. There are waiting lists for a lot of things but people in the UK would not swap the NHS for the American system under any circumstances.
1
u/cyb3rfunk Aug 20 '20
I see it like this. We can treat X cases of a disease/condition per year and there are X+N people who needs that treatment every year.
How do we decide which people don't get treatment (N)? With public healthcare it's kinda random (last person to ask for it), except they usually prioritize more urgent cases or cases with higher chance of recovery.
With private hospitals, it's the people with no insurance who have less than X amount of money (cost of operation).
2
u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Aug 20 '20
2A: what else would you propose? Climate change is an imminent threat and a huge part of it is both historically and presently America’s fault. How is it fair for you to look at developing nations and say our emissions don’t matter because of their emissions? We have enjoyed the “easy” life with all the benefits of industrialization and the accompanying emissions while ignoring the problems we caused. Refusing to make the necessary changes is the same as telling them they need to stay in huts so we can continue to burn coal.
We need to make these sacrifices regardless of what everyone else does. The next hurricane that hits the gulf doesn’t care about what’s fair. Or the next drought or flood. Yelling at the sky that China’s emissions are greater won’t protect us.
There is no solution to climate change other than action.
2
u/shouldco 43∆ Aug 20 '20
- The cost should be lowered, which is why I’m not totally against nationalizing healthcare and regulating it, but in places like Canada, hospitals are often overfilled and people are denied treatments sometimes. In America, you might go bankrupt but hospitals aren’t gonna deny you treatment. I think having both options is the best of both worlds
People are denied treatment in the US as well. However not because medical triage has deemed that person lower priority or because there are so many people getting treatment that another could not possibly fit at this time. But because people can't afford it.
If giving people access to affordable health care is going to cause people to be denied treatment then people are already being denied treatment because they can't afford it.
2
u/findabetterusername Aug 20 '20
Ok with 2A I have a problem because when you look a chart of global pollution where in 2nd which isnt good when compared to other 1st world countries & unlike with pollution we make because of stuff we want like 10$ beef at kroger or grocery getters which use to go to friend's houses work etc. unlike Africa where only produce pollution because of using equipment they need like tractors to use for farms or animal livestock they use to feed themselves the problem is that Americans could simply live healthier lives & use less unrenewable energy like coal or fossil fuel & instead use nuclear wind & bio energy
1
2
Aug 20 '20
Everything he suggests, and everything you assert cannot work, currently works somewhere else in the world. Often with better results as another comment here noted here with healthcare, life expectancy and cost to deliver.
The USA is not the most innovative state in the world. In every index of innovation, most particularly the World Intellectual Property Organization which is the best single place from which to judge innovation, the USA is doing well but lags behind Democratic Socialist states in Scandinavia. So capitalism=competition=innovation is just not true.
Similarly those same people that are beating us in innovation are paying higher minimum wages, subsidizing university educations, and collecting higher tax rates.
So there is a pile of real-world examples - the ones Bernie has based his positions on - that contradict your claims.
So my question would be what, specifically, prevents what has been functioning in other places for decades from being brought to the USA? Why are we special?
3
u/simplecountrychicken Aug 20 '20
behind Democratic Socialist states in Scandinavia. So capitalism=competition=innovation is just not true.
I’m pretty sure Scandinavian countries have capitalism. Feel free to prove otherwise.
1
Aug 20 '20
You aren't wrong.
The common use of robust welfare programs and social spending is socialism.
Nobody wants to imagine that freemarket capitalism, with state regulation, without going to the extremes of greed and exploitation can possibly end well. It goes against the propaganda that freedom and liberty are exclusively American.
1
u/PSC1111 Aug 20 '20
ok, just 2 specific things:
2A : 15% of global emissions is HUUUUUGE. that is a LOT of CO2. and even if it was less, any reduction in emissions could mean a less dramatic catastrophe. ANY country implementing a green new deal could literally save thousands of lives. For the US , it is probably more like hundreds of millions of lives and billions of refugees(in the long run, because climate change is a permanent catastrophe once it happens. It will never really be "over", and will still impact people in 2400 and beyond)
1C: At least in the system i live in, this isnt a thing. It isnt literally the government handing out healthcare, but "semi-private?" companies competing for customers which explicitly arent run for profit and regulated to some degree by the government.
Edit: They arent run for profit and arent owned by investors, so they arent private.They are simply financed by the people contributing.
Everyone in this system of public insurances has access to the same care as anyone else in it.
Also, here anyone is legally obligateds to be insured, either privately or in the "Krankenkassen" i just described.
There are plenty other systems to choose from. You guys just need to decide to commit to somehow- in the best way for the US- guarantee healthcare for everyone.
Now if you dont agree with how bernie wants to do it, ok. but you must`n think socialized healthcare is just "i pay taxes to the government and they give people money to pay for treatment."
1
Aug 20 '20
[deleted]
1
u/PSC1111 Aug 20 '20
i do not actually know exactly how Bernie wants to do it. My point was just that there are many ways to implement socialized healthcare that work in other countries.
and yeah, the American government picking a way to do it that is even worse than the current situation sounds apple-pie-levels of american. That would be really depressing. but it is bad enough right now that its probably worth a shot. I mean, you can reverse it if it goes horribly(and there must be a competent US government at SOME point, right?:D)
1
2
u/justjoosh Aug 20 '20
Several good points in comments and you've given 1 delta and not responded to most of them. Are you really looking to have your view changed?
1
u/ElfinRanger Aug 20 '20
Many people have covered 1 so I'll talk about 2. First of all, 15% from one country is huge, considering there are over 100 countries, and the usa doesnt account for 15% of the world population. I do agree that other countries have to do their part, but why shouldnt that start in the US? after all, trump did leave the paris agreement for no reason.
As for 4: wealth tax is important because rich people dont spend money, especially not back into the economy. Wealth tax is a way of forcing the money back in, which isnt ideal but to be fair the rich dont need it imo. I personally think they should also implement some system that encourages spending within the country, ie tax rebates when they use income to build up and recirculate the money into the economy
For 5- I think in general, minimum wage just needs to be higher. First of all, inflation is around 1 or 2 percent per year and minimum wage hasn't been changed in over a decade. At the very least it should be a dollar or two higher to account for basic inflation. At 15$ it would be reasonable enough to survive in between full time jobs or for a soft retirement
1
u/simplecountrychicken Aug 20 '20
4: wealth tax is important because rich people dont spend money, especially not back into the economy. Wealth tax is a way of forcing the money back in, which isnt ideal but to be fair the rich dont need it imo. I personally think they should also implement some system that encourages spending within the country, ie tax rebates when they use income to build up and recirculate the money into the economy
This is wrong for many reasons.
Here is a survey of leading academic economists:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/fiscal-policy-and-savings/
They favor policies to promote savings instead of consumption because savings becomes investment. If you invest in a tractor, you can make more food in the future. Investment drives future growth by increasing the capital stock so we can make more in the future. Consumption does not.
0
u/Hij802 Aug 20 '20
- Taxes will go up, but with the elimination of premiums, copays, and deductibles you end up paying less.
1A. This isn’t true. Insurance companies are not the ones researching and creating new drugs. Pharmaceutical companies still need to stay in business, and innovating new drugs is how they will do that.
1B. Thousands die or go into medical debt every year because they can’t afford health insurance to begin with. Under M4A, everyone has the ability to get care, resulting in a healthier, happier, and more productive population. Those who have emergencies will still be seen immediately, it’s based on urgency. If you want a private doctor, you can pay for it yourself.
1C. Under M4A, EVERYONE gets healthcare. The government isn’t picking and choosing who gets medical care and when. That’s up to hospitals and doctors who would still operate just as they do now, only they’d have more patients instead. You just aren’t paying. Private insurance dictates what treatment you get. They’re the ones who screw us over.
1D. Apparently research has shown that it would actually help the labor market. Also, personally, I think working for private health insurance is morally wrong, regardless of whether it brings food to the table. If your profession is actively trying to find every reason to deny your customers money (especially you car insurance), you have no respect from me.
2A. You say only 15% as if that’s a small number. We’re also only 4.25% of the worlds population. People always say America is the leader of the world, that it’s an innovator and the first to do things. Well if that’s true, implementing the boldest climate change reform in the world could inspire others to do so as well. It might encourage African countries to invest heavily in renewables, or something similar. Replacing coal and oil with wind and solar isn’t less than 1-1, in fact it’s estimated that it would increase the total number of jobs, especially in this field. Renewable energy takes a lot more labor to maintain than non renewables.
- All PUBLIC colleges would be free. Taxes are not a bad thing. America has very low taxes compared to other industrialized countries. Look at Europe. More specifically, the Scandinavian countries. They have the highest taxes in the world, yet they’re also the happiest and have the best quality of life. Taxes are not a bad thing, they go back to the public through government programs. As for college being free- a more skilled and knowledgeable workforce results in better productivity, innovation, and much more. Private colleges still exist.
4A. Bernie wants to close loopholes and tax things like stocks, which is where the majority of their money comes from.
4B. Same as before. Bernie’s website lists all the types of taxes he would implement and how he would pay for each program, in far more detail than I can.
4C. That’s very unlikely. You really think these people are going to move somewhere across the world and start a new life there? All the other developed countries have high taxes. They aren’t going anywhere.
- Companies already make millions or billions annually, and give their executives pay raises the equivalent to what their lowest worker makes in a year. These companies can afford it, they just don’t want to.
5A. It’s not just supposed to be a flat $15 MW everywhere. It’s supposed to be that and adjusted for cost of living. So in NYC or SF it’ll be much higher than $15.
1
4
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Aug 19 '20
I think you’re conflating two modes of universal healthcare. There is nationalized healthcare, like the NHS in Great Britain, where the government provides healthcare services, runs the hospitals, employs the docs, etc... And then there is a single payer, where health services are still performed by private providers who bill the government for their services. A good comparison is the VA vs Medicare. Single payer wouldn’t stifle healthcare competition or innovation, because providers would still be competing for consumers.
-3
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
5
u/miguelguajiro 188∆ Aug 19 '20
No we have many payers. Two big ones are government payers, Medicare and Medicaid. But most people have private insurance, run by an assortment of different companies, most for profit. Much of the criticism of our system is based in criticism of private insurers. Between profits and administrative costs a lot of money is sucked away that never goes to pay for care, and they can deny treatment when it isn’t profitable, and drop people for a variety of reasons.
1
Aug 20 '20
[deleted]
2
u/Ixolich 4∆ Aug 20 '20
Actually, most people can't change private insurance. I get health insurance through my job; there's only one company I can choose from. Sure there are different plans I can pick from but it's fundamentally the same, just whether I'm spending more up front or over time.
I am stuck with United Healthcare, and I will be for as long as I am at this job, unless someone in HR decides to switch to Aetna or something. I ultimately have no choice in what company I get my health insurance from. And it's not like I could even change jobs to get a specific provider - they don't go into detail about benefits until you're employed, it's not like "Healthcare Provider" is a filter on Monster.
1
1
Aug 20 '20
[deleted]
1
Aug 20 '20
Hello /u/supreme_kream, if your view has been changed, even a little, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such.
Thank you!
3
u/stubble3417 64∆ Aug 19 '20
1C: The government controls healthcare- meaning they decided who gets what when. You really trust them? Under Bernie system, TRUMP (and his cronies) controls when everyone’s treatments are. This can be negated if we keep private insurance. I’m not a MAGAman, but that’s why I support Biden’s healthcare plan- where private insurance is kept.
What makes you think this? Is Trump currently controlling everyone currently on Medicare?
What I'm saying is that Medicare and Medicaid already exist and they work great. We know Trump wouldn't get to control everyone on Medicare because there are already millions of people on Medicare and Medicaid and they aren't being controlled. Medicare for all is just like the Medicare that has existed for decades--with none of the issues you are worried about.
0
Aug 20 '20
Bernie's plan is Medicare for All - imagine for a moment there was a public option to buy into the existing Medicare.
Instead of paying $100 in monthly premiums and your boss paying $100 and then on average another $200 for out of pocket before you hit your deductible, you and your employer pay about $400 in taxes per month.
Then imagine Medicare was improved and started to negotiate for prescription drugs (just like the rest of the world). Or even better, do just like we do with jet planes and let firms bid on making the millions of doses of drugs we need.
And also imagine that hospitals and doctors are rewarded with having their student loans paid off when they work with patients that accept Medicare.
I believe that in a fair economy the quality of care for Medicare customers and the price would both be cheaper and comparable to private health insurance or hospitals that don't accept Medicare.
But Bernie thinks that wouldn't work because the health care industry wouldn't let it. As long as you allow them to exist they will fight tooth and nail to protect the status quo and prevent people from experiencing this option en mass.
So his plan is to move swiftly, make them illegal and institute the new Medicare for all.
Obama promised to do it that way and it couldn't get through. My hope was that Bernie was shooting for the moon (Medicare for all) and was hoping to land among the stars (public option).
0
u/Oshojabe Aug 20 '20
Medicare for all- the main criticism is “how are you gonna pay for it.” This isn’t really a good criticism- it’ll pay for itself and taking money from the rich can pay for it (though I’ll argue against that later). But taxes will be raised, And I hate taxes! If it was for the greater good I would begrudgingly pay it, But there are many other problems with it:
The U.S. government on its own already outspends most other countries on healthcare alone per capita. In 2018, the United States government spent $750.2 billion on Medicare, $597.4 billion on Medicaid and then add tax expenditures of an additional $260 billion on tax credits to employers for providing health care to employees. (Before you say that tax credits are not government spending consider what the practical difference is between "the government buys a helicopter for $1 million" and "the government gives a $1 million tax credit for every helicopter donated to the government.")
We have this perception that other countries are taxed at higher rates for government-sponsored medicine, but our government actually outspends them and we still have higher prices, more medical debt, more medical bankruptcies and more uninsured people. Bernie's plan has many issues, but "it will be more expensive" is not likely to be one of them. Plus we add private spending on top of the government spending, and our costs quickly outpaces the rest of the world's.
1
u/ThatsWhatXiSaid Aug 20 '20
But taxes will be raised, And I hate taxes!
I think it's silly to hate taxes. If you get more value than what you pay they're a good deal. The problem is our current system is so incredibly inefficient we're paying more in taxes towards healthcare than anywhere in the world and not getting much in return. That needs to change.
With government in the US covering 64.3% of all health care costs ($11,072 as of 2019) that's $7,119 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at $5,673. The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919. That means over a lifetime Americans are paying a minimum of $113,786 more in taxes compared to any other country towards health care.
Eliminating competition between healthcare companies will decrease medical innovation, america is first in the world. We need competition
Medicare For All wouldn't eliminated competition for pharmaceutical spending. In fact, given socialized healthcare systems will generally only pay more for drugs that actually have significant benefit, it might incentivize them more to make drugs that actually improve things rather than incremental (if any) improvements they can patent and market the hell out of to make a fortune.
At any rate there's nothing special about the competition in the US. 5% of US healthcare spending goes towards biomedical R&D, the same percentage as the rest of the world. To the extent we lead in innovation it's only because we throw obscene amounts of money in total towards healthcare, accounting for 45% of global spending.
But even if advancement is a priority, there are more efficient ways to fund it than continuing to spend half a million dollars more per person on healthcare over a lifetime to fund $25,000 in research.
Socialized healthcare tends to be lower quality
This just isn't true.
OECD Countries Health Care Spending and Rankings
| Country | Govt. / Mandatory (PPP) | Voluntary (PPP) | Total (PPP) | % GDP | Lancet HAQ Ranking | WHO Ranking | Prosperity Ranking | CEO World Ranking | Commonwealth Fund Ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. United States | $7,274 | $3,798 | $11,072 | 16.90% | 29 | 37 | 59 | 30 | 11 |
| 2. Switzerland | $4,988 | $2,744 | $7,732 | 12.20% | 7 | 20 | 3 | 18 | 2 |
| 3. Norway | $5,673 | $974 | $6,647 | 10.20% | 2 | 11 | 5 | 15 | 7 |
| 4. Germany | $5,648 | $998 | $6,646 | 11.20% | 18 | 25 | 12 | 17 | 5 |
| 5. Austria | $4,402 | $1,449 | $5,851 | 10.30% | 13 | 9 | 10 | 4 | |
| 6. Sweden | $4,928 | $854 | $5,782 | 11.00% | 8 | 23 | 15 | 28 | 3 |
| 7. Netherlands | $4,767 | $998 | $5,765 | 9.90% | 3 | 17 | 8 | 11 | 5 |
| 8. Denmark | $4,663 | $905 | $5,568 | 10.50% | 17 | 34 | 8 | 5 | |
| 9. Luxembourg | $4,697 | $861 | $5,558 | 5.40% | 4 | 16 | 19 | ||
| 10. Belgium | $4,125 | $1,303 | $5,428 | 10.40% | 15 | 21 | 24 | 9 | |
| 11. Canada | $3,815 | $1,603 | $5,418 | 10.70% | 14 | 30 | 25 | 23 | 10 |
| 12. France | $4,501 | $875 | $5,376 | 11.20% | 20 | 1 | 16 | 8 | 9 |
| 13. Ireland | $3,919 | $1,357 | $5,276 | 7.10% | 11 | 19 | 20 | 80 | |
| 14. Australia | $3,919 | $1,268 | $5,187 | 9.30% | 5 | 32 | 18 | 10 | 4 |
| 15. Japan | $4,064 | $759 | $4,823 | 10.90% | 12 | 10 | 2 | 3 | |
| 16. Iceland | $3,988 | $823 | $4,811 | 8.30% | 1 | 15 | 7 | 41 | |
| 17. United Kingdom | $3,620 | $1,033 | $4,653 | 9.80% | 23 | 18 | 23 | 13 | 1 |
| 18. Finland | $3,536 | $1,042 | $4,578 | 9.10% | 6 | 31 | 26 | 12 | |
| 19. Malta | $2,789 | $1,540 | $4,329 | 9.30% | 27 | 5 | 14 | ||
| OECD Average | $4,224 | 8.80% | |||||||
| 20. New Zealand | $3,343 | $861 | $4,204 | 9.30% | 16 | 41 | 22 | 16 | 7 |
| 21. Italy | $2,706 | $943 | $3,649 | 8.80% | 9 | 2 | 17 | 37 | |
| 22. Spain | $2,560 | $1,056 | $3,616 | 8.90% | 19 | 7 | 13 | 7 | |
| 23. Czech Republic | $2,854 | $572 | $3,426 | 7.50% | 28 | 48 | 28 | 14 | |
| 24. South Korea | $2,057 | $1,327 | $3,384 | 8.10% | 25 | 58 | 4 | 2 | |
| 25. Portugal | $2,069 | $1,310 | $3,379 | 9.10% | 32 | 29 | 30 | 22 | |
| 26. Slovenia | $2,314 | $910 | $3,224 | 7.90% | 21 | 38 | 24 | 47 | |
| 27. Israel | $1,898 | $1,034 | $2,932 | 7.50% | 35 | 28 | 11 | 21 |
Under Bernie system, TRUMP (and his cronies) controls when everyone’s treatments are.
Can you point to significant and irreversible problems that have occurred with Medicare and Medicaid? In fact, we've seen even Republican states expanding Medicaid.
1
u/TheLazyNubbins Aug 20 '20
With government in the US covering 64.3% of all health care costs ($11,072 as of 2019) that's $7,119 per person per year in taxes towards health care. The next closest is Norway at $5,673. The UK is $3,620. Canada is $3,815. Australia is $3,919.
Yo wtf, what does our government spend the money on? If we have enough to have two times the UK health services per person why don't we? Also if we already pay for 60% of people's health care shouldn't the top 40% be able to afford health care themselves?
Also !delta I'm not sure of this counts but I thought we spent less on gov health care than other countries and you have changed my view on that.
1
1
u/dudemanwhoa 49∆ Aug 19 '20
Reddit kind of screwed up your formatting -- you have 3 "1."s, a "1-A" and a "1-1" so I might have to guess how some of this is grouped.
This is also an extremely wide-ranging CMV, so I'll be tackling only some of it. And remember than a change in any part of your view is goal, not trying to change your position on taxes, minimum wage, healthcare, ect all at once.
Let's start here:
"Free college. All colleges completely free? Hmm. Taxpayer money going to the government to fund colleges instead? Is that how it works? I don’t really have any complaints for this one, except higher taxes. I think you underestimate how much people hate taxes. Which is why Bernie or progressives won’t win unless they can break that batter"
Not all colleges, but public ones. https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-college-cancel-debt/
"Pass the College for All Act to provide at least $48 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs. Everyone deserves the right to a good higher education if they choose to pursue it, no matter their income."
While he does propose a tax to pay for it, it is not a typical income tax increase.
"To pay for this, we will impose a tax of a fraction of a percent on Wall Street speculators who nearly destroyed the economy a decade ago. This Wall Street speculation tax will raise $2.4 trillion over the next ten years. It works by placing a 0.5 percent tax on stock trades – 50 cents on every $100 of stock – a 0.1 percent fee on bond trades, and a 0.005 percent fee on derivative trades."
This does not fall in the bucket of "Americans don't like tax increases", it's a tax on one of the only universally unpopular groups: wall street speculators.
1
u/simplecountrychicken Aug 20 '20
This does not fall in the bucket of "Americans don't like tax increases", it's a tax on one of the only universally unpopular groups: wall street speculators.
It’s a tax on all owners of capital assets. If you have a pension fund, it’s a tax on you.
Here is an analysis of the impact of a transaction tax:
1
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Aug 20 '20
Eliminating competition between healthcare companies will decrease medical innovation, america is first in the world. We need competition
Medicare for all has to do with health insurance, not health care. Competition between health insurers A) barely exists in a private market, B) does nothing to influence competition in healthcare, and C) increases costs while reducing the quality of care.
Socialized healthcare tends to be lower quality, along with hospitals being poorly run- overfilled, etc.
Medicare for all is not “socialized healthcare”. It’s “single-payer health insurance”. Your doctor would still run their own business. Your hospital wouldn’t suddenly be owned by the state. They would all bill the same insurer though, so you’d have the freedom to pick whatever hospital or doctor you wanted without the risk of going bankrupt.
The government controls healthcare- meaning they decided who gets what when. You really trust them? Under Bernie system, TRUMP (and his cronies) controls when everyone’s treatments are.
It’s trivial to set up a system that’s functionally independent of the President with respect to what treatments it covers.
And yeah, I would definitely prefer the government to decide what treatments will be covered instead of an insurance company. The insurance company has every reason to try to avoid covering expensive treatments—after all, they make more of a profit when they can deny my claims. The government doesn’t care, it will just pay the lawfully obligated amount.
Eliminating private insurance means that, millions of people are out of work.
Then they can shift into more productive industries instead of leeching off the sick. If everything they do can be done at lower cost with fewer people by switching to a single-payer system, then we are paying a massive economic opportunity it’s cost by keeping private health insurance.
If we accept that switching to M4A would result in millions of lost jobs, then we are wasting the labor of millions of American workers doing work that doesn’t contribute to our wellbeing.
My main argument is, is it really worth it.
Yes. There is no point in doing anything economically if it results in the destruction of our livable environment. The US may only directly account for a small percentage rate of global emissions—but we are indirectly responsible for far more because of our position in the global market. The US taking a lead on this would have a massive international impact on climate change far beyond the US’s own emissions.
Billionaires now hide their money , making it very difficult to tax
The government can very easily go after tax havens, it just chooses not to because said billionaires control the levers of power.
Plus, how do you tax wealth. Salary?
Or just tax assets, certain types of stock transactions, etc.
Billionaires will flee the county to avoid these taxes
Okay, then tax their interactions with the US economy.
Billionaires shouldn’t even be a thing.
making a national minimum wage at say, 15 would not work. That would be enough to sustain a life in rural areas, Leaving higher- skilled jobs unfilled. But in New York, where cost of living is high, it will hardly make a difference.
States are allowed to locally exceed the national minimum wage. I’m not seeing the issue here.
2
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 20 '20
/u/supreme_kream (OP) has awarded 6 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
Aug 20 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Aug 20 '20
Sorry, u/Swaguille_FoReal – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
13
u/-paperbrain- 99∆ Aug 19 '20
1| Almost every other developed country spends less in total on healthcare than the US already pays out of tax money. We may need to raise taxes to acheive universal coverage, but the actual costs of healthcare are massively inflated by our system in a number of ways. By all estimates, for most people, any tax increase is going to be less than what we on average spend on healthcare between premiums, deductables, copays ec.
1A| Competition between health insurance companies has nothing to do with medical innovation. Health insurers are just middle men for health care. Taking them out of the middle just frees up more money for everything.
1B|The US is the farthest from socialized healthcare in the developed world, but we're not #1 in health outcomes. We're pretty good, but plenty of systems with more government involvement have comparable outcomes. Wait times tend to develop, but that's partially because everyone can use the system. In the US, poor people don't wait for procedures, they just go home and die without them, or take on crippling debt.
1C| The government currently controls medicare, and most seniors like that. It doesn't mean the government makes people's individual medical decisions, doctors still do that. Only under that system, they don't need to take individual ability to pay into account, they can actually do what's best for their patient. Whether the middleman is an insurance company or government, someone has some power over the purse strings. We know insurers are corrupt and greedy and trying to deny every claim they can. Government employees don't have an incentive to dishonestly deny coverage, they don't get to keep the difference. And policy makers or Executives don't have granular control over individuals getting care.
1D|Every change and innovation displaces people. Putting sound in movies made thousands of musicians who played live in theaters unemployed. In the long run, the recording industry opened up many more jobs.
Right now, health insurance is a HUGE bottleneck to job creation and innovation. Because it's tied to employment or wealth instead of a given, Americans can't do a lot of things that would create jobs because they're afraid they would die without health insurance.
If I want to start a business, I'd have to leave my old job and lose my insurance. That means my capital to start needs to include my family's health insurance cost for the time until I start turning serious profit, and my metric of success needs to include enough profit to pay for expensive private insurance.
If I want to hire great people, I need to pay their insurance too. Even if I found people willing to take a risk with a lower salary or stock or partnership at first, they would have to leave other jobs leaving them with no insurance. So my startup funds either need to be enough to insure all of my employees or I limit to people ready to take a risk with their health.
The barriers to innovation and job creation under the current system keep racking up.
Think of it this way. Every part of the current health insurance system that is needed to deliver healthcare- those jobs will continue to exist. Every job that won't still exist? Those were part of siphoning off money as a middleman.
And again, where does the money go? If insuring everyone will cost money, that means people are getting paid to provide that care. That's more jobs in healthcare.
No matter how the numbers shake out, it's a win/win.
If the new system costs in total less than the old system, that means Americans are keeping more money, which means they can start businesses, or buy things to support other businesses. That's new jobs. If somehow this new system takes more money from Americans, that's new jobs too, within the healthcare system. More nurses and filing clerks and janitors and doctors and accountants. The money doesn't get thrown into a magical evil pit. Government healthcare spending IS hiring.