Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.

Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.

We have magical heath care. Every time I hand my insurance card over and then they check our benefits, the person always asks in a hushed voice: where do you work?? No copays, ever. No referrals. My children have truly tested our coverage (two different rare disorders and all the hospitalizations that come with them), and we truly have never had anything but 100% coverage via our insurance.

I would guess you only get health care this good if you work for a powerful union (which are dwindling in number) or in a high-powered, high-paid industry were you have oodles of other benefits too.

All this to say: you can take away my excellent health care and people like me will still have access to the private market to fill the gaps. But millions of people have inadequate coverage that still bankrupts them if they have the audacity to be sick. When my oldest child almost died, she was hospitalized and running test after expensive test to find out what’s wrong. I had the luxury of not having to stop then to ask the price. That’s the way it should be for necessary medical treatment.

We should be worried about the millions rather than the few unicorns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

There are literally millions of infilled jobs with full insurance benefits?

Source for this?

The easiest way to explain most of the democrats plans, you can pay $1000/m for a private plan like the PP oy ui canpay $3000 more per year in taxes, but save the $1,000/mo.

So yes, your taxes go up, but you net out ahead.

The problem is that everyone does NOT have great employer provided plans. They can have ridiculously high deductibles, crappy prescription drug plans, etc. We pay $1k/month out of my husband’s check for our part of the premium yet still have to pay several thousand in deductibles and frequently get hit with unexpected bills for ridiculous nonsense (like an exclusion for a certain part of a blood panel that i’ve Been having run for a decade that his current company feels is not necessary). And we have the best plan available to us through his company, a company we really have no choice in because he loves his contract position but his contract keeps changing hands because of the way the gov’t works (he’s been in the same job for 7 years with at least 5 different contract holder companies)

I would much rather have a basic plan for everyone - the $1k we’re paying to some insurance company out of our pocket could instead be put in a pot for that. I mean, let’s be honest, insurance companies are for profit and the execs are buying multiple mansions and yachts while telling us that therapies for our sick kids aren’t necessary. Screw that.

We also have great healthcare. But I’ve also been in the position of having none, and so I know what that’s like.

It’s an ethics question. You have to decide what your values are. Are you willing to put aside your own interests for the greater common good?

Most people in this country are not. And so here we are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

I am keeping up, and you obviously can't dispute that whatever basic system would be proposed would be wildly too expensive and too expansive. But OK, let's just expand the state forever to replace actual economic production. That works great with a decent percentage of the population that already isn't productive. That sounds like a great idea!

It is quite a leap from "let's make sure we have a viable healthcare system like every other western country" to "let's take over the means of production and private property"

Somehow, every other western country has figured it out. Are we that incompetent?

Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.

Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.

Vote for your and your family interest first. If you are a democrat and really care about paying for someone's healthcare, just purchase a plan for a neighbor and pay for it.

Don’t worry. Universal healthcare is not going to happen. Not any time soon. We’re not a progressive country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

I am keeping up, and you obviously can't dispute that whatever basic system would be proposed would be wildly too expensive and too expansive. But OK, let's just expand the state forever to replace actual economic production. That works great with a decent percentage of the population that already isn't productive. That sounds like a great idea!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Yeah, I'm talking outcomes data for specific countries, not whatever unsourced story you want to tell (true or not) about a totally different country.

Try to keep up.

These wild plans would be edited by congress and rolled out over time. No way does something like this happen overnight.

Anonymous wrote:Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

This is an excellent point, one ignored by anybody advocating for any of this. Let's take Japan, as an example. They have health care for all. They also have a system where if you have cancer with a low percentage of success in curing, you get a kiss on the forehead and you go home to die. Dental care is another basket of insanity over there. And, yes, I know. I have lived there and work with Japanese companies all the time.

Of course, our system would never work that way. Only the best of palliative care, regardless of condition! That won't work, and is unsustainable. You want BASIC health care for all, that could only work if it is limited. Want something better, get yourself into a position to have health care provided as part of your compensation. Its not that hard, despite what everybody wants to say about how horrible america is, particularly now with millions of jobs unfilled, all of which provide health insurance, because people won't show up sober for more than a few days in a row.

Anonymous wrote:To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.

Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.

What happens to your coverage if you lose your job?

Depends on whether I get Canada's outcomes measures with that. Or Germany's, or New Zealand's.

To me, this is a huge thing that will deeply affect my family. We currently have great health insurance and pretty much immediate access to any specialist we need. Deductibles are minimal.

Most of the Democratic candidates' plans will mean worse healthcare access for us, and I assume many folks. I find this really frustrating! How is this considered a winning issue. I'm not going to vote against my own self-interest.