Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[Jonnusthegreat]

That catalogue is part of our social security laws. Costs are revisited regularly but since it's an actual law chances of costs going up astronomically are slim to none.

Seems non-profit to me.

[Felya]

Nah I'm happy to pay for roads and I'm happy to contribute to a social program that gives healthcare to poor people. But I don't believe in coercing and forcing anyone to act in accordance with my personal positions.

Your first sentence contradicts the second... why should I be coerced into paying to get you to work, while I work from home?

[Twdft]

Seems non-profit to me.

I probably just don't understand the American meaning of non-profit then. German hospitals can't charge more for a hip than is in the catalogue and all charge the same, but if you find a way to source cheaper hips or manage your hospital better so it's cheaper to run you make more profit than a poorly managed hospital, no?

[Ripster42]

Not what anyone's asked to do, anywhere that has universal healthcare coverage.

It's a masturbatory bit of fetish propaganda that right-wingers won't stop abusing, but it bears no resemblance to reality in any respect.

To be fair, a bunch of people employed by the health insurance industry would likely (at least temporarily) be out of a job. Those dickheads are letting people die so they can have their corporate headquarters located lakefront in DT chicago though, so fuck them.

[Edge-]

To be fair, a bunch of people employed by the health insurance industry would likely (at least temporarily) be out of a job. Those dickheads are letting people die so they can have their corporate headquarters located lakefront in DT chicago though, so fuck them.

And the entire existing logistical system would need to be unraveled and respooled, to boot. Which is why I'm gobsmacked at all the folks thinking that M4A can be done like, overnight, much less overnight in the midst of a pandemic. That's a ton of people who will soon be out of work (they're not all gonna work for the Medicare administration) who need to be accounted for, and a massive amount of backend work when it comes to pricing, billing, shipping, ordering etc. etc. etc. etc.

I've never understood the notion that transitioning a nation of 350M people from a disparate system of private insurance that varies by state to a centralized payment system would be simple.

[Shadowferal]

For me I don't believe in taxes and nations. Things like taxes and national militaries pretty much only exist to coerce other people. Why anyone wants these things is baffling to me.

That's because you have a comparably easy life. If the real shit ever broke into your home and pistol whipped you across the face...don't complain or call the police. Or perhaps closer to home; if a fire breaks out and leaves you homeless don't apply for those FEMA loans.

[Jonnusthegreat]

I probably just don't understand the American meaning of non-profit then. German hospitals can't charge more for a hip than is in the catalogue and all charge the same, but if you find a way to source cheaper hips or manage your hospital better so it's cheaper to run you make more profit than a poorly managed hospital, no?

We have 2 different distinctions: non-profit means you CAN'T make a profit, and not-for-profit means your intention isn't to make money, but you might.

In a correct non-profit situation, all costs would be added up and then divided amongst the populace, with the [single] payer footing the bill until it's paid back. Not really sure what this qualifies as... a mix of both? Really interesting that it's legislated. Definitely better than the US system though.

[PC2]

Your first sentence contradicts the second... why should I be coerced into paying to get you to work, while I work from home?

You shouldn't be forced to do that.

It's a dumb topic though because probably 95% of tax payers are fine with public roads which means at most 5% of people don't consent on that topic. Where as with universal healthcare perhaps only 40% of Americans who pay any significant amount of taxes consent to it which means the level of coercion is vastly higher. It's simply not a very good comparison.

[Edge-]

You shouldn't be forced to do that.

It's a dumb topic though because probably 95% of tax payers are fine with public roads which means at most 5% of people don't consent on that topic. Where as with universal healthcare perhaps only 40% of Americans who pay any significant amount of taxes consent to it which means the level of coercion is vastly higher. It's simply not a very good comparison.

And those numbers come from...where, exactly?

[Jonnusthegreat]

And those numbers come from...where, exactly?

Words like 'probably' and 'perhaps' provide the necessary context. His brain. I would assume his numbers are politically driven.

[Zaktar]

And the entire existing logistical system would need to be unraveled and respooled, to boot. Which is why I'm gobsmacked at all the folks thinking that M4A can be done like, overnight, much less overnight in the midst of a pandemic. That's a ton of people who will soon be out of work (they're not all gonna work for the Medicare administration) who need to be accounted for, and a massive amount of backend work when it comes to pricing, billing, shipping, ordering etc. etc. etc. etc.

I've never understood the notion that transitioning a nation of 350M people from a disparate system of private insurance that varies by state to a centralized payment system would be simple.

Having worked in that system for years, specifically on the paperwork side, it would be a nightmare if someone tried to do it overnight. The system I worked for had numerous hospitals across multiple states, and despite an ostensibly standardized system, things as simple as billing codes were radically different from place to place. When we had to interface with any given hospital we needed to have solid contacts who understood the local system in order to get anything done. It's like almost everything in the US, very regional and not remotely standardized. Changing bureaucracy like that takes time - conservatively years - and is very difficult if you're changing one system at a time. I worked through the implementation of the ACA and it wouldn't surprise me if the mistakes and confusion caused during that time killed hundreds of people through avoidable timing errors. I can't imagine the horrors it would cause if we tried to upend everything at once. Slow and steady is the way.

[Felya]

You shouldn't be forced to do that.

It's a dumb topic though because probably 95% of tax payers are fine with public roads which means at most 5% of people don't consent on that topic. Where as with universal healthcare perhaps only 40% of Americans who pay any significant amount of taxes consent to it which means the level of coercion is vastly higher. It's simply not a very good comparison.

So, we move from no coercion, to coercion you like? I bet less than 0.1% support roads from your house to anywhere... so, appeals to popularity don’t work.

[PC2]

And those numbers come from...where, exactly?

When specific data does not exist on a topic what you do is conjecture an approximation. So if you see words like "perhaps" and "probably" that means it's based on conjecture.

If universal healthcare was popular among high tax payers and low/no tax payers in the USA it would already be implemented right now. The fact that it's not implemented shows that it's not highly popular, especially among the group of people who have the most influence in society.

[Zan15]

You shouldn't be forced to do that.

It's a dumb topic though because probably 95% of tax payers are fine with public roads which means at most 5% of people don't consent on that topic. Where as with universal healthcare perhaps only 40% of Americans who pay any significant amount of taxes consent to it which means the level of coercion is vastly higher. It's simply not a very good comparison.

Strange cause i see majority when i look at polls on all forms of this topic


https://www.kff.org/health-reform/po...-january-2020/

latest KFF tracking poll finds that a majority of Americans favor a national Medicare-for-all health plan (56%) but a larger share favors a government-administered “public option” (68%).

Been above majority for quite a while.

An actual public option to compete against the private has an even higher rate above 65%

Medicare to all is even higher
https://pnhp.org/news/two-thirds-of-...very-american/

VA support is also way above 50%
Medicaid and the support of expanding Medicaid to more people and the poor....80%
https://www.protectourcare.org/wp-co...s-May-2020.pdf



So every current public option is well above 50% and every planned one is above 50%.

So where do you get your numbers from? Republican only poll?



Also this is a very dangerous trend you want to start
https://news.gallup.com/poll/288761/...ing-right.aspx

50% now say we spend just the right amount.
31% too much.
17% too little.

Soon the majority won't based on trend, support any increases in military spending. Guess we are all being coerced to pay for something the majority shouldn't. Time to abolish the military!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Having worked in that system for years, specifically on the paperwork side, it would be a nightmare if someone tried to do it overnight. The system I worked for had numerous hospitals across multiple states, and despite an ostensibly standardized system, things as simple as billing codes were radically different from place to place. When we had to interface with any given hospital we needed to have solid contacts who understood the local system in order to get anything done. It's like almost everything in the US, very regional and not remotely standardized. Changing bureaucracy like that takes time - conservatively years - and is very difficult if you're changing one system at a time. I worked through the implementation of the ACA and it wouldn't surprise me if the mistakes and confusion caused during that time killed hundreds of people through avoidable timing errors. I can't imagine the horrors it would cause if we tried to upend everything at once. Slow and steady is the way.

in what year are you talking about?

Systematic codes in the US have been standard for decades.

Billing codes under U82 and U92 have been standard since I started in insurance in the 1980's-1990's for hospitals.
CPT code standards too have been around for decades.


none of this would change or need to change.

Only thing that would change is the financial system to get paid and pay for the system.

- - - Updated - - -

When specific data does not exist on a topic what you do is conjecture an approximation. So if you see words like "perhaps" and "probably" that means it's based on conjecture.

If universal healthcare was popular among high tax payers and low/no tax payers in the USA it would already be implemented right now. The fact that it's not implemented shows that it's not highly popular, especially among the group of people who have the most influence in society.

LOL universal healthcare is probably the most polled thing out there. Dose not exists??


Property tax is not popular, and yet everyone pays it.

[Ivanstone]

When specific data does not exist on a topic what you do is conjecture an approximation. So if you see words like "perhaps" and "probably" that means it's based on conjecture.

If universal healthcare was highly popular among high tax payers and low/no tax payers in the USA it would already be implemented right now. The fact that it's not implemented shows that it's not highly popular, especially among the group of people who have the most influence in society.

Thought you didn't like conjecture? Your sig indicates that you don't.

Universal Healthcare is popular amongst the populace. So are a lot of things like gun control for example. A small minority with outsized influence does not want it for everyone. Roads are allegedly popular but that small minority also avoids maintaining them. I wonder if they have an ulteriour motive for doing so? (Yes, they're cheep fucks who don't want to pay short term taxes even if it benefits them in the long run)

[Gestopft]

If universal healthcare was popular among high tax payers and low/no tax payers in the USA it would already be implemented right now. The fact that it's not implemented shows that it's not highly popular, especially among the group of people who have the most influence in society.

Dude, there are plenty of issues that are popular among the voters that don’t get passed. There is a hell of a disconnect between Congress and the public at large....

[Fahrenheit]

In principal, I support it. But my wife and I make well into six figures and have platinum level care for not that much. I’d have to see what the plan entails, and how much my out of pocket costs rise.

[dwertius]

And the entire existing logistical system would need to be unraveled and respooled, to boot. Which is why I'm gobsmacked at all the folks thinking that M4A can be done like, overnight, much less overnight in the midst of a pandemic. That's a ton of people who will soon be out of work (they're not all gonna work for the Medicare administration) who need to be accounted for, and a massive amount of backend work when it comes to pricing, billing, shipping, ordering etc. etc. etc. etc.

When Americans want to start a idiotic war vast amounts of money can be found and huge amounts of hardware and personnel are moved round the world...when it comes to reorganizing pre-existing hospitals into an efficient format where numerous pre-existing successful models can be copies then suddenly its always too hard....

- - - Updated - - -

If only you were right.

except the largest amounts of NHS privatisation in my life time occurred under Blair and the Labour Party, it was under Blair that private health care firms such as bupa were granted access into the nhs, it was Blair who also created academy schools, expanded the private sector contracting in the public sector, all that was a labour goverment no matter how much many wish Blair wasn't labour it was labours flag he stood under.

Which is why I bitch about the labour party, because I care, because there supposed to represent me, but I don't feel like they do, Blair was just a red thatcher and corbyn seemed lost trying to re fight the battles of the 70s and 80s.

So what? You vote for other parties that are ambivalent or actively hostile to the NHS because you didn't get exactly what you wanted? That doesn't make any sense.

- - - Updated - - -

In principal, I support it. But my wife and I make well into six figures and have platinum level care for not that much. I’d have to see what the plan entails, and how much my out of pocket costs rise.

Do you really make six figures? Because it is hard for me to believe you make six figures and are that into penny pinching. Are you one of those weirdo millionaires that buys out of date bread so you can save 10 cents or whatever?

I will make six figures this year. You know what I'm thinking? ITS FUCKING BRILLIANT TO HAVE THAT INCOME. You know what I'm not thinking? Oh its so terrible I might have to pay a few thousand dollars extra to help keep a system afloat that relieves people's pain, misery and suffering....

[beanman12345]

In principal, I support it. But my wife and I make well into six figures and have platinum level care for not that much. I’d have to see what the plan entails, and how much my out of pocket costs rise.

And this is the crux of the problem, what is the plan? There are so many plans for universal healthcare. Like Jimmy dore pushing #Forcethevote, yet Dore is a big proponent of Bernie's M4A no private's as the only way, yet his #Forcethevote is for Pramila Jayapal's M4A bill which will have private's. The whole thing is so stupid.

Are meds gonna be free no copays, or do we need privates to pay for supplementals? what about cosmetic surgery? Is dental and eye glasses covered? how do we get republicans on board to make *forbidden topics* part of this? I believe we should go the way of Canada or Denmark, but that's not what bernie is fighting for which is a universal healthcare utopia, and realistically even as popular as it is, will never pass due to said republicans who are not on board with *forbidden topics*.

[Zaktar]

in what year are you talking about?

Systematic codes in the US have been standard for decades.

Billing codes under U82 and U92 have been standard since I started in insurance in the 1980's-1990's for hospitals.
CPT code standards too have been around for decades.

none of this would change or need to change.

Only thing that would change is the financial system to get paid and pay for the system.

Around 15 years ago, maybe I'm getting my jargon confused? My memory functions more on action than terminology. I'm not at all familiar with U82 or U92 - CPT codes look familiar, though I worked more in membership administration than billing. When I dealt with this at all, it was usually as a fly on the wall looking out for eligibility issues as we dealt with a problem a specific group was having. My team dealt with larger employers who usually had people in multiple regions, and it got confusing fast when we had to deal with multiple hospitals. I can remember long phone calls where we had to disentangle extremely confused billing data which differed significantly from hospital to hospital and didn't match up with our pricing system. It seemed like hospitals had significant differences as to how they actually coded things vs how we expected them to vs how a hospital in a different county did.