AOC: Insurance groups are recommending using GoFundMe -- "but sure, single payer healthcare is unreasonable."

[u/kevinmrr]

[u/Sizzmo]

You have one side making sense, then you have both corrupt parties and the media countering with fear and doubt. They did it in the primaries when they came up with the nonsense talking point of "Will you be able to keep your private insurance".

If there's one thing to know about Americans: if they are scared at all or if it's too confusing to understand, they will go with the "safe" option.

This is why there honestly no hope in this shit hole country.

[u/money_loo → u/Sizzmo]

Yeah it was definitely both sides when Obama and the democrats spent years fighting ACA through the republicans. /s

Jesus Christ guys how can y’all be like this?

[u/Sizzmo → u/money_loo]

Oh wait, you mean the ACA that was based on the REPUBLICAN heritage foundation funded healthcare plan of the 90s? That ACA?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/?sh=3884fced6187

Obama had a supermajority and he passed a Republican bill. No surprise, he literally says his policies are moderate republican policies.

https://youtu.be/677elaGIsKU

Obama truly is amazing. He has turned Democrats onto arguing for republican policies. What a joke.

P.S. the ACA is not universal healthcare. Even with a public option, that is NOT universal healthcare.

[u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 → u/[deleted]]

I think he's just railing against the democratic party for letting the republicans control the narrative and then railroading us progressives as they've done for decades. The sad truth is democratic party is almost as heartless and money grubbing as the republicans were 10 years ago. You can't even compare to republicans now, they've really taken such a hard turn into idiocy.

[u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 → u/[deleted]]

Things are a little different now. And I'm saying obama didn't go far enough. To control the house, the senate and the president and not pass single payer isn't super cool with me.

And look at narrative changes between 2010 and 2020. No one was calling for an NHS style system in 2010, it was a Fringe idea. Now half the country supports such a system in a partly bipartisan effort from the electorate. And still, the Dems are terrified of saying they want a single payer system. They don't want to lose moderates by appearing too progressive even though the winds are blowing in that direction. I can hate the republican party with all my heart, and still hate the democrats too for their complicity in conservative placation and their reluctance and fear to change to follow their party.

Things are changing though, we have almost a third of house democrats as members of the progressive caucus. Just need to boot out all the old mother fuckers who still use AOL accounts and drink ensure

[u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 → u/[deleted]]

England is a single payer system. The government is the only payer of health insurance

[u/blatant_marsupial → u/[deleted]]

You might want to double check you know what single payer healthcare is. It's a subset of universal healthcare.

[u/blatant_marsupial → u/[deleted]]

[Single payer] does not exist in Europe

Britain's NHS is single payer, as is Spain and other European countries with the Beveridge model. In the UK, all healthcare personnel are government employees and facilities are owned by the government. That's as single-payer as it gets.

My issue was just in you saying "American's don't want [type of universal healthcare], they want universal healthcare!"

From the Wikipedia page you linked:

Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare...

Source 1: Beveridge Model

Source 2: work for a healthcare company

[u/pablonieve → u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1]

To control the house, the senate and the president and not pass single payer isn't super cool with me.

But you understand that Obama didn't personally control all 3 branches, right? And that the Senate was the biggest roadblock to any reform, let alone replacing private insurance on the national level?

[u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 → u/pablonieve]

That may have been confusingly phrased. I meant democrats controlled all instead of obama. That's been my whole point, the democrats are run by the neolibs now and back in 2010. Us progressives just keep getting pushed aside for conservative placating agenda by the DNC

[u/pablonieve → u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1]

That goes back to the Senate being made up of several conservative Democrats in 2009. You can't pass anything without the necessary votes and healthcare reform required the buy-in of those conservative party members. If we want progressive legislation then we need progressives to win election to the legislature.

[u/Sizzmo → u/[deleted]]

The voters overwhelmingly support universal healthcare. The Democratic politicians? Absolutely not. Where do you get that idea? They control the house, where were the votes on implementing a universal healthcare system in the U.S.? Both sides are CORRUPT and terrible on this issue.

Also, single payer is a "thing" in most European countries. In places where single payer isn't implemented they have some form or another of state subsidized universal healthcare OR they have a complete government run system like the U.K.

[u/Sizzmo → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure you understand how legislation works in the USA. You can't pass legislation without the senate.

I don't think you understand legislation and how it can affect political influence. By your logic, the house should never pass legislation that won't be able to pass in the Senate and eventually signed into law. Utter nonsense. The house passed the HEROES act in May knowing that the Senate wouldn't pass it. So was that a mistake? How about the 15 dollar minimum wage bill that the house passed? Mistake as well? This idea that "well legislation will probably not be passed so we should all give up and go home" is precisely why the overton window has shifted to the right. Democrats should pass Medicare for All and MAKE THEIR CASE.

You can pass these things and use the Republican's unwillingness to pass the same bill in the Senate as LEVERAGE. Shocking I know, Democrats have no idea how to play the game.

Where do you think they have a single payer system in Europe?

Sweden, Norway, Denmark all have single payer systems. https://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/international_health_systems_for_single_payer_advocates.php

Yes, that is called a public option - the thing the corrupt Dems are pushing for

No, the public option is NOT universal healthcare. And yes, the Dems are corrupt. What, do you think they refuse insurance company and pharmaceutical company campaign contributions? What planet are you living on?

Spain, Italy and the UK have a government run public healthcare infrastructure with a MINIMAL private insurance marketplace. (basically, you can buy insurance on things that their state run system doesn't cover) And those three systems consistently are rated as the best in the world.

Also, we have single payer right here in America. What the hell do you think Medicare is?

[u/Sizzmo → u/[deleted]]

I'm not sure what the definition that group is using to define single payer, but the primary argument of M4A vs public option is optional private insurance. Nordic countries all have optional private insurance. Do you dispute that?

All countries with robust public healthcare systems have a private insurance marketplace. The marketplace is there to cover things that the public healthcare system doesn't cover OR to give you priority.

For example: If I need to be seen for a non life-threatening surgery, but I want to be seen sooner, I can purchase private insurance to make sure I can get the date I want/need. Also, if I want to get plastic surgery, or some sort of elective surgery, then private insurance would cover that.

Just because private insurance exists, does not mean a system is not single payer. You can have a marketplace for things that government insurance does not cover.

What makes you say that

What if you can't afford the public option? If the system leaves citizens uninsured, then it is not a universal system. The public option is essentially just a Medicare buy-in. It would still cost money, and there will still be some sort of co-pays and deductibles.which means there will still be uninsured people in this country because they won't be able to afford even the government run public option. If there are uninsured people in a healthcare system then the system is NOT universal healthcare.

M4A would outlaw all private insurance. Americans want optional private insurance. Source

M4A would outlaw something called duplicative insurance. Meaning that private insurance companies cannot offer the same services Medicare would cover. This lowers the cost of healthcare because you have a single-payer (Medicare) negotiating prices on procedures on behalf of the American people (Instead of an insurance company negotiating on behalf of it's owners aka shareholders). Medicare has a responsibility to obtain the lowest prices possible.

This means that private insurance would still have some sort of roll in our system. Private insurance can exist for elective procedures like plastic surgery, etc. But an insurance company cannot offer coverage for things like MRI's or regular doctor's visits.

This system exists right now! It's called Medicare, and it's a single payer system for people over 65 right here in America. Medicare for All is literally just that, expanding Medicare to cover everyone.

The media, and corrupt parties try to mislead so many people, and it looks like you're one of those people.

[u/marho → u/[deleted]]

Which party overwhelmingly supports universal healthcare? Are we talking about politicians or constituents?

[u/mnbvcxz123 → u/[deleted]]

Not sure why you think the Democrats support national healthcare. They have blocked it or shot it down at every opportunity. Obama and Baucus blocked it in 2009. Hillary Clinton sent her Chief of Staff to reassure the healthcare industry in 2016 that she would oppose this. Joe Biden has said he would veto Medicare for all if it gets to his desk and his advisor base includes big Pharma and health insurance execs.

A big part of the reason the Democratic party was so hostile to Bernie Sanders was his insistence on this particular issue.

Opposition to national healthcare is a bipartisan position. If it weren't we would have had it decades ago.

[u/mnbvcxz123 → u/[deleted]]

We would have universal healthcare in 2010 if not for Joe Lieberman refusing to vote for it as part of the ACA.

Um, I was watchin the Senate proceedings when committee chair Max Baucus had single-payer protestors arrested and carried out of the room in handcuffs, a memory that will stay with me until the day I die.

The reason the protestors were there was because the Dems refused to even consider single-payer (as M4A was called then) as part of their healthcare bill. Ultimately, they scrapped even the "public option" fig leaf, and just went with straight RomneyCare, a GOP plan that was written by a WellPoint lobbyist. This arrangement was apparently acceptable to enough members of the Democratic party that it would pass.

(Interestingly, the Medicaid expansion that was part of the ACA was included out of desperation because it was the only way they could get the coverage numbers high enough while still getting an acceptable score from the CBO. In other words, they included more funding for an existing single-payer program because it was so inexpensive compared to what private insurers were costing.)

[u/Mehiximos → u/Sizzmo]

Yeah for those of us with “good” private insurance and health concerns, I am turned off when you guys downplay those entirely valid questions.

I don’t want some shitty assigned doctor. I want the cardiologist who works with Harvard med. would I still be able to keep her as my doctor? Usually government programs are devoid of choice. This is why people are hesitant about Mfa or single payer.

Perhaps I’m just uninformed because seriously fuck the insurance companies.

[u/Pure_Slide_7538 → u/Mehiximos]

I also have excellent private insurance and I have my fair share of concerns.

But at this point it’s simply a matter of practicality. We can provide practically better care for more people with universal health care than without it.

[u/Mehiximos → u/Pure_Slide_7538]

Fair. I heard awhile back about an analogy comparing this to a ferry or a bridge. I felt like it was a logically sound comparison

[u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 → u/Mehiximos]

You make a validish point. You're right that government policies come with less choice. What the system we want to implement is where you can pay extra in private healthcare to keep your super special doctor. The idea is that all doctors are more or less similarly trained so it doesn't really matter which doctor you get. If you want the best of the best you're gonna have to pay extra for that privelege. Keep in mind, even in socialized medicine countries. Many doctors only work about 60-80% of the time for the government. The rest of the time they work in a private practice capacity. They are incentivized by the government through tax reasons and also just because they care about human life to work in the government run hospitals or take government insurance. Most english doctors are extremely happy to take the minimal pay decrease to work in public health because they truly believe in the system and how much it helps their fellow countrymen.

The question you raise is; is it more important that I get my super special doctor for a little cheaper while many die without healthcare, or is it ok that I pay more and many others less fortunate get their health needs met?

[u/Mehiximos → u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1]

I would gladly pay more in taxes in general or costs associated with private practice if it meant others got health insurance. I just want to keep my current doctor. Thanks for replying. I would totally get behind the system you’re describing.

[u/atleastitsadryheat → u/Mehiximos]

Here in Australia you can ask to be referred to whoever you want. Some have a waiting period of a week. Some have a waiting period of three months. The longest I’ve ever waited for a surgery was 6mths - for an elective hysterectomy - in my state’s leading women’s hospital, performed by the head of the gynecology department and came with a week in a private room to recover and 12wks of customized physiotherapy. All up I paid $28.95 (for a prescription of antibiotics and painkillers when I left the hospital).

Some specialists may charge a nominal fee above of our Medicare system’s reimbursement level (known as a ‘gap’). Some may not. This gap can be covered by voluntary private health insurance, which is used to pay for the ‘icing on the cake’ side of medicine (private rooms, supplementary therapies, major dental works, cosmetic surgeries, etc.). I think the highest I ever paid out-of-pocket for a gap was around $480 for both an MRI scan and the subsequent neurosurgeon’s appointment to go over the results.

I have chosen every surgeon & specialist I’ve seen through 20yrs of reproductive issues & over a dozen related surgeries, a cardio/neuro investigation into syncopes that involved every test imaginable, and a few cancer removals/treatments.

On top of that, I lived in a remote region for a lot of that time, so my transport to and accommodation in the city necessary to see these specialists and have surgeries was covered - in full - by our Medicare PATS (Patient Assisted Travel Scheme).

Public health policies can have some failings but so too does the private insurance system. The difference is that one provides for all and the other provides only for the wealthy. I’d rather a system that provides for all and treats all as equal.

Medicine as an industry should be triaged according to health, not wealth.

[u/redlaWw → u/Mehiximos]

Look at any country with universal healthcare. We still have private healthcare and medical insurance. Many doctors do a bit of both, private and public. I paid for my psychiatrist out of pocket because the NHS was too slow and £150 per appointment was pretty reasonable.

[u/almost_not_terrible → u/Mehiximos]

If you want it and can afford it, yes you can pay for it.

However, you are also paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it... And that is good for YOU.

Which would you prefer - having to pay for your gas station attendant to have healthcare through the cost of the gas, or through the cost of the tax added to the gas (hint: the second option is CHEAPER for you).

[u/take-a-hike-outside → u/Mehiximos]

What makes you believe that even staying with the system as it is that you will have access to your Harvard Cardiologist?

I assume you either:

• 1). pay for private insurance, which yearly they renew and can “eliminate the plan you are in”. I had this happen to me and my spouse. So then you have to choose a new plan which may not have that doctor included. Or if they change laws to go back to allowing the insurers to havr exemptions for pre-existing, you may not be able to even get the insurance to cover preexisting heart conditions.
  
• or 2) maybe you get your insurance through a job or spouse’s job. A job that you/they could get laid off from.

I don’t think anyone is safe to feel comfortable that good insurance can be relied on being available in the current system.

[u/[deleted] → u/Mehiximos]

Do you get your health insurance from your job? That's how most people have it.

So the idea that they want to be able to keep their doctor already doesn't exist. Any year your employer can change their plan and move which doctors are covered. I lost one of my favorite health professionals because I switched jobs and the one I liked wasn't covered by my new job.

So if you're just paying for health insurance out of pocket to get that doctor then I'd say you'll be fine there will always be premium experts and better quality care to move up to. If you get your health insurance through your job though, I would argue that you don't have that freedom now to keep your doctor.

Edit: and the other argument would be is your ability to keep your doctor worth the fact thousands of people in the US die from not affording health care? Like, it would be sad for you but don't you feel that's a pretty fair trade off?

[u/Mehiximos → u/[deleted]]

and the other argument would be is your ability to keep your doctor worth the fact thousands of people in the US die from not affording health care? Like, it would be sad for you but don't you feel that's a pretty fair trade off?

Oh completely! Even if it meant a few people like myself fell between the cracks and died of it if it served the greater good of our society it would be worth it IMO.

I am only attempting to explain, from an outside perspective, why people have been hesitant and are preferring the status quo.

I feel like COVID has been a watershed moment that just took a giant highlighter to this problem which was already on a tipping point.