Another option is to utilize/expand the healthcare system currently in place for federal employees. It is already set up and works well.
Another option is to utilize/expand the healthcare system currently in place for federal employees. It is already set up and works well.
My parents were living in Canada when single payer came in. Some doctors who were only in it for the money moved to the states. My own experience in Canada where I lived briefly as an adult is all the doctors cared, whereas in the US some have focused on the pharma salespeople in their office and tried to push pills on me and rush through appointments.Originally Posted by Rogar
If the US institutes single payer most doctors will just have to accept it. How many doctors can a tiny but rich country like Dubai absorb?
Of course many of the candidates advocating for single payer also want to forgive student loan debt, which for medical school graduates is huge. I suspect the expensive medical malpractice model might change too. In Canada as I recall doctors work for the government so the states would provide the malpractice insurance if we follow that model (there the insurance is at the provincial not the Federal level). They are also unionized and sometimes strike for better wages, only providing emergency care until they successfully negotiate a new contract. Can someone who lives in Canada please advise if my memory is correct here?
In the US it is the nurses who I hear about striking.
That's interesting, Yppej. I suppose whatever comes to be will somehow work out. If Medicare is optional, but not entirely single payer and like Buttigieg is promoting, I would assume the doctors will flee from it to the privately insured patients as much as your Canadian doctors fled to the U.S.? Although the issue around college debt might put a different perspective on things. There are enough successful health plans around the world, that I've wondered why we have to be locked into a Medicare for All template instead of adopting the best aspects of those that are working other places. At this point it is probably all speculation, anyway.
because we have been trying to do something to get a decent healthcare system for 2 decades plus (I mean our government with the Clintons and then Obama), and so at this point noone cares about utopian speculation on could this or that work, but just want something that DOES work.There are enough successful health plans around the world, that I've wondered why we have to be locked into a Medicare for All template instead of adopting the best aspects of those that are working other places
One could say the ACA was an attempt on some level to move toward the Swiss system (also a very expensive system, but only the 2nd most expensive - we're #1). But if that intent was ever there, it was BUNGLED SO BADLY by corporate influence (inability to regulate like they do etc.) that we didn't get that regardless. (They are also a very different society, much richer than us).
People see corporate money corrupting everything plus being very expensive to the taxpayer (single payer is the cheapest way to achieve universal coverage) unless it is taken out of the equation entirely, attempts to work with it have not produced a decent healthcare system.
Everyone else is just saying "give us another chance to make backroom deals with the insurance companies and the pharma companies etc. and see how it works out this time". Yea only we've given them chances at that already.
Trees don't grow on money
You will never please all the people all of the time. One person’s “no one left behind” is another’s “no one can escape”. But we can at least be honest about our positions. If mentioning tax increases is treated like saying “Beetle Juice” three times, politics becomes a weird sort of child’s game. There are a number of pundits out there saying it was wrong to even ask Warren the question. As if refusing to talk about it would make it go away. I’m beginning to think that whenever Warren says “Let me be clear” we can expect some smoke to be blown our way. Brings you in mind of Nixon’s “let me make one thing perfectly clear”.
One thing about Bernie: he may be almost violently wrong on any number of issues, but he is willing to state his position. Nor has he issued any revisions to his personal history. You have to respect that.
Yes, would suspect there was some discussion about how to package some version of a single payer plan and Medicare was something people had some comfort level around. Medicare for All isn't turning out to be that popular in the polls and among my more liberal friends and if it's one of Warren's main talking points, it might work against her. Maybe it just isn't packaged correctly because the Medicare option or expanding the ACA seem more popular. Though I be more in favor of just white boarding the whole thing and coming up with something better.
Then, I think there could be a general vagueness for most people about what the wealth tax that she is proposing really is. My version without looking anything up is that it basically assesses a person's net worth and if it's is over a certain amount you get slapped with a new tax. That sounds like an accounting nightmare for a wealthy person with lots of investments and business assets with lot's of chances to play the system.
Even if she were to overcome the political and constitutional roadblocks, there would seem to be a lot of practical difficulties. Assessing and arguing over what’s included in “net worth” will create major career opportunities for lawyers, accountants. bureaucrsts and art appraisers. I would think it would also create strong incentives to move wealth offshore, or develop new trust and estate strategies.
I'm sure wealthy people calculate their net worth all the time. Businesses certainly do. I have done it myself humble though my circumstances are.
As to illegality, how is this different than the excise tax I have to pay on my car?
[QUOTE=Yppej;336024]I'm sure wealthy people calculate their net worth all the time. Businesses certainly do. I have done it myself humble though my circumstances are.[QUOTE]
When a business calculates value, would it be book value or include goodwill, which is the common value for the sale of a business and is often sizable and difficult to determine. Would there be a rush to collectibles like art or cars or maybe gold or other precious metals? All difficult to verify. How about trusts? Maybe there is an easy way. I'm sure Warren will clarify sometime.
Oh, I don't know if she really needs to clarify anything on the wealth tax front. The cynical part of me believes she's building a sort of perverse goodwill for her political brand by promoting class divisions, which has always been popular among a large percentage of the Democratic base. She doesn't have to actually follow through as mis-spent political capital may not be recoverable.
I'd be more interested in details around Bernie's desire to eliminate billionaires. When he starts gesturing with those wild eyes and spittle flying I believe he really means it.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote