Not a bit? A parent in DC area just too lazy to use commas warren or Biden.

Anonymous wrote:You mean my precious private health insurance that goes up 20% a year and has a $5K deductible? Oh yeah, lets preserve *that*.

Exactly. My "insurance" covers so little that I'm postponing a procedure I need until I reach Medicare. I'm a bit uncomfortable at times, but it isn't a threat to my health - and I just can't afford to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a small procedure (I'd estimate less than 5 minutes), especially after I'm paying almost $900 a month for the "insurance."

I bet that all the liberals who said it was "worth it" for me to have much worse insurance (and at a higher cost) so that low-income people can get free care will sing a different tune if THEY are the ones who end up with worse coverage. I even had a liberal on this forum tell me that I should be willing to give up life-saving medical care (if it came to that) so that poor people can get the treatments they need. Now I ask you: which one of you liberals is willing to sacrifice your life and burden your family with an avoidable loss so that other people can get insurance? Show of hands, please.

Anonymous wrote:Voting for Warren Biden anyone that ensures not one person goes bankrupt due to medical bills. Health insurance should be a given. For all. Pay private if you want but no family should lose their house due to cancer or chronic $$ Illness of child or spouse

Hi bot

Such ridiculous scaremongering. I appreciate Dems pushing the terms of the debate to the left. Let's be real, if American citizens got the ability to buy-in to Medicare if they lost job based coverage, it'll be a miracle. I actually think that's good enough for most.

We have employer sponsored health insurance and I consider us lucky. We don't pay any premium, but do have a $3 K family deductible.

Ironically enough, for all the nonsense about Dems taking away the cheeseburgers of "real Americans," US consumption of beef and sugar is a huge driver of our health care costs....if we did tax the hell out of beef and sugar, we'd have enough money for universal health care. But the powers that own the US government aren't going to stand for that.

Voting for Warren Biden anyone that ensures not one person goes bankrupt due to medical bills. Health insurance should be a given. For all. Pay private if you want but no family should lose their house due to cancer or chronic $$ Illness of child or spouse

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no R plan because the vast majority are fine with their healthcare

Employer sponsored healthcare works great for most people so if you have a job you are generally covered

Bring back catastrophic insurance plans for people who are generally well that is what ACA screwed up. I was fine as a single person in my 20s paying 50 bucks a month for catastrophic. Those plans are gone and instead you have to pay 300+ a month (unsubsidied) with a deductible 5 to 10k+ that is similar to most catastrophic plans.

There are also temporary insurance plans for when you are between jobs

For people who are truly destitute there is medicaid

This.

Most people were actually better before ACA.

What Obamacare really did was to screw a hundred million people in order to offer some deficient insurance to twenty million.

says someone who never got cancer and reached their lifetime max.

You were fine in your 20s because you were healthy. As you get older, you get more illnesses.

I'm 50 and have had private insurance for 20 years. We have pre-existing conditions now in the family. Sure I was healthy in my 20s and didn't really need insurance. Now.. I have children and we are getting older and have health issues.

You won't stay young and healthy forever. That is a guarantee.

You are right, I've never had cancer.

But several in my family did. And do you know what they did, even if they were insured?

They went back to be treated in our country of origin. There, they got better treatment than here and at lower costs -- even when paying it all out-of-pocket.

Which goes back to thw fundamental problem in the US: the crazy costs.

Until we fix that, the rest is just about stealing money from some folks in order to subsidize some other folks.

PP here.. ITA.. the costs here are out of control. I have family members in the UK who use NHS for most things, but pay private when they want to be seen urgently. It's still cheaper than insurance here.

But, at the minimum, having expanded medicare access will increase the pool and bargaining power. If the government can't lower healthcare costs because, let's face it, most free market people don't want government to control costs (though they do for utilities, so I don't understand why they can't do for health care costs), then you have to expand the group to lower the cost.

I'm betting people like AOC would be fine with controlling costs, not that I'm a big fan of her's, but just pointing out that no R would ever use the dirty word of "cost regulation".

I'm self employed, and a few years ago, I looked into finding a trade group to get group rates. I ended looking at one of those alternative healthcare insurance, one that is not ACA compliant. I spoke to the rep at length, and asked what would happen if I got cancer (because their plan has a $250K/year max). He told me that the next year, I would get kicked off the plan and they would direct me to... ACA plans. Basically, he is saying that if you are healthy, you don't need ACA, but the minute you get a serious illness, you need ACA.

That's not a great alternative.

There are better group plans and rates now, allowed since tax reform.

I encourage you to take another look.

Do these other plans have a lifetime max of $250K? If so, then we are back to square one, and it doesn't resolve the issue of why we needed ACA.

I have private insurance - HMO Access in MD that allows me to see specialists without a referral. $1300/mo for four. Yes, it's a high deductible plan. But, I never have to worry about hitting my lifetime max, and that's important to me as we have pre-existing conditions in the family, and I've already had one cancer scare.

You mean my precious private health insurance that goes up 20% a year and has a $5K deductible? Oh yeah, lets preserve *that*.

Anonymous wrote:
I'd like to see the stats for Europe and the UK.

Canadian and US doctors receive the same training and the degrees are mutually recognized, so not the best example for this.

How does that not make them a good example for how to run universal healthcare access well?

Granted, it's not a good example if you are looking for a particular negative result, but I am assuming that is not what you are doing.

It is an absolute fact that countries with universal care ration it to those with low chances of survival or for whom very expensive medical treatments pay off with just a few months of extra life. otherwise they simply wouldn't be able to pay for it.

I'm not convinced that is bad policy. If survival rate is very low and side effects and trauma from treatment are high, it may not be a good idea to throw everything and the kitchen sink in. Have you ever read the article titled something like "How Doctors Die?" It's not by exhausting extreme measures -- not for most who actually live int he healthcare field.

You are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise--there is no nirvana country that provides all the sort of care you can get in the US with decent insurance free to all its citizens.

Never said or suggested that. I did take to task the entirely false claim that in systems with universal coverage, premature babies were just left to die and people in their 80s were never offered heart bypass procedures. Because that is flat-out wrong and should be corrected (and should not be posted again).

As long as we are talking about Canada, perhaps we can discuss how they and the UK have lowest number of MRI machines per capita in the industrial world and how it can take months to get an MRI for even suspected cancer. That is why Buffalo NY has such a thriving business in MRI radiology for Canadians who pay out of pocket to get one quickly by crossing the border.

Sure, we can talk details about Canada. We can talk about limited MRI slots, too -- but are you willing to discuss how they manage to get better outcomes with fewer MRIs, or are you more interested in number of machines than actual survival data?

This will be a difficult adjustment, but once the Medicare For All taxcut kicks in, I’m sure I’ll feel it was worthwhile

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Almost all countries limit health care for the elderly. A 40 year old can get a heart bypass, but an 80 year old can't. This is part of how they keep they costs low.

Same for extreme preemies--in the US we try to save them, in other countries they don't. And if they die less than 24 hours after birth, they don't include the death in their infant mortality stats. Another way they save costs, while incidentally also improving their overall health outcome indicator numbers.

It seems many American don't understand the degree of health care rationing that goes on in other countries to achieve universal coverage at a reasonable cost. Just like they don't understand how tightly college education is rationed to make it almost free. These countries do not have a utopia where people get all the health care and education they want courtesy of the state.

I believe Americans are not culturally prepared at this time to be told no heroic measures can be done to save grandma or your long-planned and hope for baby or that sorry you didn't get a good enough grade on a test in high school so you just need to suck it up and forget your college dream because it's not happening.

Great great, comment. Couldn't agree more.

-- European

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Almost all countries limit health care for the elderly. A 40 year old can get a heart bypass, but an 80 year old can't. This is part of how they keep they costs low.

Same for extreme preemies--in the US we try to save them, in other countries they don't. And if they die less than 24 hours after birth, they don't include the death in their infant mortality stats. Another way they save costs, while incidentally also improving their overall health outcome indicator numbers.

It seems many American don't understand the degree of health care rationing that goes on in other countries to achieve universal coverage at a reasonable cost. Just like they don't understand how tightly college education is rationed to make it almost free. These countries do not have a utopia where people get all the health care and education they want courtesy of the state.

I believe Americans are not culturally prepared at this time to be told no heroic measures can be done to save grandma or your long-planned and hope for baby or that sorry you didn't get a good enough grade on a test in high school so you just need to suck it up and forget your college dream because it's not happening.

I don't think you actually know the details about the situations you are claiming as fact. I think you have probably been listening to talking points, not looking at data.

Here are some real stories about extreme preemies who were given every chance to survive in Canada (and did): https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/extremely-premature-babies/
"About eight percent of babies born in Canada are premature, according to the most recent Canadian Premature Babies Foundation report, published in 2014, and of those, 14 percent were extremely preterm." That's .. not "not trying to save them."

Additionally interesting, given the flack Japan has received: "Thanks to advancements in technology, research and medication, the minimum age at which there’s a reasonable possibility for a newborn to survive outside the uterus—known as the threshold of viability—has edged down to 23 weeks in Canada and the US, and just 22 weeks in Japan."

Here's a 2009 article on Canadian octogenarians (that is, people in their 80s) receiving coronary bypass surgery, and increasing survival rates: Decreasing mortality for coronary artery bypass surgery in octogenarians at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691916/

Don't post fearmongering and incorrect information.

I'd like to see the stats for Europe and the UK.

Canadian and US doctors receive the same training and the degrees are mutually recognized, so not the best example for this. As a previous poster noted, in many countries you are put on palliative care if you have a cancer with very low cure rates. I am not saying this is wrong or a bad choice, but simply one that the vast majority of American would find hard to accept.

And Japan is in the position of a precipitous decline in births so investing in more babies is it worth it to them.

It is an absolute fact that countries with universal care ration it to those with low chances of survival or for whom very expensive medical treatments pay off with just a few months of extra life. otherwise they simply wouldn't be able to pay for it.

You are being disingenuous to suggest otherwise--there is no nirvana country that provides all the sort of care you can get in the US with decent insurance free to all its citizens.

As long as we are talking about Canada, perhaps we can discuss how they and the UK have lowest number of MRI machines per capita in the industrial world and how it can take months to get an MRI for even suspected cancer. That is why Buffalo NY has such a thriving business in MRI radiology for Canadians who pay out of pocket to get one quickly by crossing the border.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Almost all countries limit health care for the elderly. A 40 year old can get a heart bypass, but an 80 year old can't. This is part of how they keep they costs low.

Same for extreme preemies--in the US we try to save them, in other countries they don't. And if they die less than 24 hours after birth, they don't include the death in their infant mortality stats. Another way they save costs, while incidentally also improving their overall health outcome indicator numbers.

It seems many American don't understand the degree of health care rationing that goes on in other countries to achieve universal coverage at a reasonable cost. Just like they don't understand how tightly college education is rationed to make it almost free. These countries do not have a utopia where people get all the health care and education they want courtesy of the state.

I believe Americans are not culturally prepared at this time to be told no heroic measures can be done to save grandma or your long-planned and hope for baby or that sorry you didn't get a good enough grade on a test in high school so you just need to suck it up and forget your college dream because it's not happening.

I don't think you actually know the details about the situations you are claiming as fact. I think you have probably been listening to talking points, not looking at data.

Here are some real stories about extreme preemies who were given every chance to survive in Canada (and did): https://www.todaysparent.com/baby/extremely-premature-babies/
"About eight percent of babies born in Canada are premature, according to the most recent Canadian Premature Babies Foundation report, published in 2014, and of those, 14 percent were extremely preterm." That's .. not "not trying to save them."

Additionally interesting, given the flack Japan has received: "Thanks to advancements in technology, research and medication, the minimum age at which there’s a reasonable possibility for a newborn to survive outside the uterus—known as the threshold of viability—has edged down to 23 weeks in Canada and the US, and just 22 weeks in Japan."

Here's a 2009 article on Canadian octogenarians (that is, people in their 80s) receiving coronary bypass surgery, and increasing survival rates: Decreasing mortality for coronary artery bypass surgery in octogenarians at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2691916/

Don't post fearmongering and incorrect information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Almost all countries limit health care for the elderly. A 40 year old can get a heart bypass, but an 80 year old can't. This is part of how they keep they costs low.

Same for extreme preemies--in the US we try to save them, in other countries they don't. And if they die less than 24 hours after birth, they don't include the death in their infant mortality stats. Another way they save costs, while incidentally also improving their overall health outcome indicator numbers.

It seems many American don't understand the degree of health care rationing that goes on in other countries to achieve universal coverage at a reasonable cost. Just like they don't understand how tightly college education is rationed to make it almost free. These countries do not have a utopia where people get all the health care and education they want courtesy of the state.

I believe Americans are not culturally prepared at this time to be told no heroic measures can be done to save grandma or your long-planned and hope for baby or that sorry you didn't get a good enough grade on a test in high school so you just need to suck it up and forget your college dream because it's not happening.

But ... it's not "rationing" to say that a micropreemie or frail elderly person shouldn't get every medical intervention in the book thrown at them. The fact that Americans can't accept death cannot be the basis of a rational healthcare policy. We need to get more lifesaving/life improving care to the people who can benefit from it most.

Anonymous wrote:How about regulating the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies to cut costs rather than focusing on limiting coverage for the sick and elderly?

I know it won’t happen, but dare to dream, right?

We have Cadillac insurance, and I don’t want to lose it. I’d rather see Medicare and Medicaid expanded for those who need it.

Almost all countries limit health care for the elderly. A 40 year old can get a heart bypass, but an 80 year old can't. This is part of how they keep they costs low.

Same for extreme preemies--in the US we try to save them, in other countries they don't. And if they die less than 24 hours after birth, they don't include the death in their infant mortality stats. Another way they save costs, while incidentally also improving their overall health outcome indicator numbers.

It seems many American don't understand the degree of health care rationing that goes on in other countries to achieve universal coverage at a reasonable cost. Just like they don't understand how tightly college education is rationed to make it almost free. These countries do not have a utopia where people get all the health care and education they want courtesy of the state.

I believe Americans are not culturally prepared at this time to be told no heroic measures can be done to save grandma or your long-planned and hope for baby or that sorry you didn't get a good enough grade on a test in high school so you just need to suck it up and forget your college dream because it's not happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is no R plan because the vast majority are fine with their healthcare

Employer sponsored healthcare works great for most people so if you have a job you are generally covered

Bring back catastrophic insurance plans for people who are generally well that is what ACA screwed up. I was fine as a single person in my 20s paying 50 bucks a month for catastrophic. Those plans are gone and instead you have to pay 300+ a month (unsubsidied) with a deductible 5 to 10k+ that is similar to most catastrophic plans.

There are also temporary insurance plans for when you are between jobs

For people who are truly destitute there is medicaid

This.

Most people were actually better before ACA.

What Obamacare really did was to screw a hundred million people in order to offer some deficient insurance to twenty million.

says someone who never got cancer and reached their lifetime max.

You were fine in your 20s because you were healthy. As you get older, you get more illnesses.

I'm 50 and have had private insurance for 20 years. We have pre-existing conditions now in the family. Sure I was healthy in my 20s and didn't really need insurance. Now.. I have children and we are getting older and have health issues.

You won't stay young and healthy forever. That is a guarantee.

You are right, I've never had cancer.

But several in my family did. And do you know what they did, even if they were insured?

They went back to be treated in our country of origin. There, they got better treatment than here and at lower costs -- even when paying it all out-of-pocket.

Which goes back to thw fundamental problem in the US: the crazy costs.

Until we fix that, the rest is just about stealing money from some folks in order to subsidize some other folks.

PP here.. ITA.. the costs here are out of control. I have family members in the UK who use NHS for most things, but pay private when they want to be seen urgently. It's still cheaper than insurance here.

But, at the minimum, having expanded medicare access will increase the pool and bargaining power. If the government can't lower healthcare costs because, let's face it, most free market people don't want government to control costs (though they do for utilities, so I don't understand why they can't do for health care costs), then you have to expand the group to lower the cost.

I'm betting people like AOC would be fine with controlling costs, not that I'm a big fan of her's, but just pointing out that no R would ever use the dirty word of "cost regulation".

I'm self employed, and a few years ago, I looked into finding a trade group to get group rates. I ended looking at one of those alternative healthcare insurance, one that is not ACA compliant. I spoke to the rep at length, and asked what would happen if I got cancer (because their plan has a $250K/year max). He told me that the next year, I would get kicked off the plan and they would direct me to... ACA plans. Basically, he is saying that if you are healthy, you don't need ACA, but the minute you get a serious illness, you need ACA.

That's not a great alternative.

There are better group plans and rates now, allowed since tax reform.

I encourage you to take another look.