Depends on what you call suffering. If you're talking about the suffering of one of my latest interviewees, who has diabetes and her HbA1c numbers were really going down due to her medication, but when I asked her why they skyrocketed at a certain point lately she said it was because she couldn't afford her medication, and now she's suffering from some of the horrible consequences of diabetes.
As Bernie has said, if you add up all the money people spend on their insurance, deductibles (which are climbing higher and higher), and copays, and then look at how much taxes will be raised to cover Medicare for All, I believe for most individuals it would be at least a wash. And if you consider it "suffering" to be in a tax bracket that can easily afford to have your taxes raised a small amount to cover some of the benefits all the other developed countries in the world seem to enjoy, well, I'll take that kind of suffering over the suffering of my interviewee any day.
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
Young people with Type 1 diabetes are dying because they cannot afford their insulin. I pay taxes and will gladly pay more to stop that.
From this article in the NYTimes today, talking about one huge reason our system is bloated:
As a matter of ethics and equality, this should be O.K.; sticking with a system that is the source of so much death, debt and financial ruin just because you like your doctor or your insurance company or your medical-billing job is not really a defensible position.
On the other hand, in America, “I’ve got mine and I don’t want to lose it” is always pretty good politics.
The jobs argument goes like this: There’s a lot of fat in the American health care industry, and any effort to transform it into a simpler system in which everyone is covered would necessarily eliminate layers of bureaucracy and likely reduce overhead costs. Every year Americans collectively pay about $500 billion in administrative costs for health care — that is, for things like billing and insurance overhead, not for actual medical care.
These costs are significantly higher than in most other wealthy countries. One study on health care data from 1999 showed that each American paid about $1,059 per year just in overhead costs for health care; in Canada, the per capita cost was $307. Those figures are likely much higher today.
The thrust of this article is that there is an argument that streamlining the healthcare system will lose jobs. This is why we are fighting to save jobs for people who work in coal mines, people who own gas stations, and all other industries that are going to be as relevant as the typewriter very soon. Is that a good enough reason to hold on to a ridiculously inefficient system?
"Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
www.silententry.wordpress.com
The issue for the union, though, is not that they gave up one raise one time. It’s that they have given up something(s) every three or four years at the contract renewal to keep the healthcare plan. It’s almost a certainty that at each renewal negotiation management’s starting ‘ask’ includes revisions to the health plan to reduce its cost.
Some proposals include a punitive “Cadillac tax” to reduce the value of more generous plans and make a government option more attractive. Others include eliminating the deductibility of employer paid premiums for the same reason. Single payer eliminates the differences by simple brute force.
Given the broad spectrum of plans right now, however, it’s difficult to believe a single payer system wouldn’t have disparate impacts on working people. Making a blanket statement to the contrary seems disingenuous to me.
There is already a Cadillac plan tax on the books scheduled to go into effect in 2022.
You are correct LDAHL.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)