Any new system is going to be disruptive until it gets its feet under it. You really won’t get a system up and running well until you have implemented it for 3 years, maybe 5 years. This is a large step for a large population. Why can’t they give all Americans the plan Congress has now?
Why is it good enough for congress, but too good for us? Can’t we all agree that is a problem that should be resolved? Why should I pay for someone else to have a better plan than I can afford for myself?
Conservatives generally consider the CBO to be left-of-center. And here are their key findings about Medicare for All:
1. Administrative expenses would likely go down (keep in mind admin. costs are a small part of health care costs overall. Doctors and hospital costs are the key issue).
2. Wait times would go up.
3. Treatments widely available today would sometimes be denied under a Big Government System (the way ALL single payer systems work).
4. Taxes would go up, WAY up.
Polls show that a vast majority of Americans reject Medicare for All once the factors identified by the CBO are explained to them.
Conservatives: Keep quiet about this. Let the Dems. run on it until we get close to the 2020 Presidential election. Just another loser idea, like Reparations, Open Borders, Free College, Marijuana everywhere, higher taxes . . .
APRIL 18, 2019 AT 2:55 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
4
5
Oh, how sad. Guess how many people you have convinced to change their minds with your sad story? It rhymes with “hero”.
Reply
APRIL 23, 2019 AT 12:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
FUNNIEST Clown Quote ever on Insurance Journal! Awesome. (“You dumb. Me smart.”) Terrific. Still laughing.
I don’t know why Insurance journal allows you to post these. They aren’t on topic, they are clearly taking someone’s own words out of context to weaponize their own words against them. This is basically a consistent attack against Craig.
Polls show that a vast majority of Americans argue there are polls to support their stances when they’re really just making things up that have no basis in reality.
Polls show that a vast majority of Americans who internally acknowledge they lost an argument retort with straw man arguments and deflections to try and divert attention away from the fact they were caught lying.
May 6, 2019 at 9:13 am
HillaRedacted Email says:
Like or Dislike:
10
9
Trolls often veer off-topic when credible polls with results with which they are proffered by an opponent. Such trolls disagree with polls of people who lived under a Single-Delayer, er, Single-Slayer, um, Single-Payer system in Cana-duh.
Cana-duh-ian people say their S-P health care system works very poorly due to their Federal Government budgeting 11% of their GDP to health care, which yields hyuuuge delays, mainly due to fee controls on medical care pros, and prioritizing their rationing of service to youth over seniors. In the US, a micro-version exists in the VA Health Care system, which my relatives used…. it sucks as bad as the Cana-duh-ian S-P HC system.
May 6, 2019 at 9:20 am
HillaRedacted Email says:
Like or Dislike:
5
9
Cana-duh-ians migrate to the US to get health care in numbers because there are delays due to artificial price fixing of doctors fees, shortages of medical pros, and prioritizing treatment of youth over the aged. The number of such ‘defectors from Socialized Cana-duh-ian Health Care S-P treatment’ is approximately 200,000 per year out of a popn of 37M.
May 6, 2019 at 9:25 am
HillaRedacted Email says:
Like or Dislike:
2
8
re: 2nd post above; error;
Should read ‘credible polls with results with which they disagree are proffered by an opponent…’.
Bear culpa.
May 6, 2019 at 9:48 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
8
4
Why are you bringing up Canada?
I asked him to supply the evidence that “Polls show that a vast majority of Americans reject Medicare for All once the factors identified by the CBO are explained to them.”
I do not believe there are any polls of Americans which show that.
If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it once I see the link.
If I’m right, Craig should admit he was lying.
May 8, 2019 at 10:06 pm
HillaRedacted Email says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
I brought up Cana-duh because I can…. and that their system of health care, which is a proxy for ‘Medicare for all’, is a failure as regards QUALITY, QUANTITY, and TIMELINESS of health care treatments.
May 5, 2019 at 4:20 am
Leah says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
May need to double check administrative costs. Just read that these are larger part of cost. CBO is speculating. It would be good to see a real plan that has been put together to let us know exactly, or as close to exactly as we can get, how this will be implemented & what all is involved in it. The real pros & cons.
Costs will be driven down in a competitive market, not a market dominated by a single payer (monopoly with no interest in controlling costs – – – they’re passed on as taxes). Taxes to pay the INEFFICIENT costs are increased to cover higher than expected costs… or benefits are reduced or rationed to the young.
When given the option and the financial resources, serious medical care is provided in the United States not in their home country with socialized medicine. Most recently in the news was Mick Jagger who chose to fly to New York and pay to have a heart valve replaced rather than stay in England and get it done for free…eventually. Canadians flock to the US for care every day because wait times are so long in Canada. The Fraser Institute published an article on this December 4, 2018.
Patients who travel to another country to seek health care are referred to as medical tourists. The term arose because many Americans seek less expensive elective surgical, dental, or cosmetic procedures while vacationing abroad.1 Of course, US hospitals and physicians have also long cared for medical tourists from other countries. Now, many medical tourists are going the other way—from the United States to other countries to receive health care. In 2007, it is estimated that 750,000 Americans traveled to other countries for health care.1 In 2017, more than 1.4 million Americans sought health care in a variety of countries around the world.2
The reason more Americans have become medical tourists is simply that they are seeking less expensive health care. Because we have the most expensive health care system in the world, it is not difficult to find countries that offer various procedures at 30%-65% of the cost of care in the United States.2 Other countries can charge less because of lower pay to physicians and other health care workers, much less overhead because patients pay cash, and subtraction of the substantial cost of malpractice insurance.3
You are finally on the scent of the real culprit: doctors and hospital costs, which are FAR higher in the USA than elsewhere. But what did Obamacare do? It promised doctors and hospitals that their fees would not change in order to the get the AMA and Big Medicine to support Obamacare. Big Brave Barry didn’t want to fight the power. He just wanted a phony “win”.
Let me know when you Big Talking Lefties want to confront doctors and hospitals. In the meantime, I will keep laughing at your Medicare for All delusions. . .
You’re such a partisan hack Craig. Even when you agree with someone you act like a schmuck.
May 8, 2019 at 12:26 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
4
2
Oh, poor baby. Maybe you want to read a few of Captain Kangaroo’s many insulting responses to my prior comments, comments that were fair, reasonable and respectful.
May 8, 2019 at 10:11 pm
HillaRedacted Email says:
Like or Dislike:
3
1
Hey, “Boorish”, did you have ANYTHING to refute what Craig said, or are you simply ‘attacking the messenger (of truths)’?
May 4, 2019 at 5:29 pm
Subsidization says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11
0
Basically, the private plans subsidize the money losing social programs out the now. If you just had social programs (now) most of the hospitals and other providers would be in tough financial straits. Look at all the hospital and system closures and consolidations in the last 20 years — do we want just one health care insurance provider, really?
There can be ways to cover people caught in between jobs and such but even that is expensive.
Two critical issues, not in any way intended to discredit or criticize Craig:
1. Consistently, the phrases “health care” and “health care insurance” are used interchangeably. They are markedly distinct;
2. If you want to see what Medicare for All will look like, visit the Post Office, or observe the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), the next time you’re at the airport, especially a large one……
I know the distinction between ‘care’ and ‘insurance’.
I’ve seen the VA, and how its patients; i.e. a relative, are not properly treated…. and almost died due to poor care.
Healthcare reform–yes. Single payor euro style–no! I spent the first 12 years of my life living in Canada and the UK (all my extended family live in Europe still) and the poster child for single payor is Sweden/Finland/Norway. However, people fail to realize that “Scandinavian Socialism” is far more sophisticated than what Bernie is peddling. Sweden, for example, has a very sophisticated government, a highly educated population, and less than ten million in population (and a very advanced economy). If you think that the USA can easily replicate their system you are out of your mind. With all that being said, the current for-profit US healthcare system needs reform badly. Just my two cents, somewhat anecdotal too.
Bernie couldn’t possibly re-create the Scandinavian system; he is a Communist, not a Socialist. The Great Society Programs have failed miserably. LBJ stole trillions from future generations of Americans, both in Medicare / Medicaid, as well as dipping into the Soc Sec. trust fund lock box in ’65. Bernie would be another LBJ, the only distinction being Sanders is a Commie who would tear down the US military to fund a Social Program to keep Dem Commies in power.
Please Yogi, define “communism” for the class and then explain how Bernie even comes close to being one. Then, define, “democratic socialist” and discover that’s ACTUALLY what Bernie is. Enough with the Red Scare already. This isn’t the early 80’s, although we do have a dumb Hollywood actor at the top of the house, so in that way it is similar. Are you going to hang a velvet Tramp next to your velvet Ronnie?
No country of this size can have the Scandinavian system – duh! But, just like with any innovation, are there pieces we can take from it and then create something of our own. Not with a bunch of naysayers out there who don’t want to work with the other side to actually accomplish something. The previous system was the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation. Something had to be done. And now, that reform needs some further assistance. We all know the risk control process. We identified the exposures, we analyzed them, we examined the feasibility of alternative techniques, we selected the best one, it was implemented, we are monitoring it, and now we review and revise. There are improvements that can be made if those in Washington are willing to work together. But it appears this president is more worried about his ego, image, and his “side” than working with others to actually make some sort of progress. #sad
Complicated: it involves the government, which means bureaucracy and red-tape and many forms to fill out so they can find something that enables them to deny coverage.
‘Disruptive’: …to your life; i.e. you may die while waiting for treatment; e.g. The Veterans Administration Health Care Process. The Cana-duh-ian Socialist Health Care Rationing System with a fix 11% of Cana-duh-ian GDP allocated to Health Care treatments per FY.
I am astonished at when colleagues do not publish comments that harmoniously build on what was written. Twice now I have experimented with you posting a comment on free-market Percentage As You Earn (%PAYE) finance & mutual medical finansurance, financing pre-existing conditions, insurances, Personal income improvement investments (Piii), with genuine economic incentives for wellness, preventative care, and long-lasting curative care. It was the 12th comment in both cases with on others. You are now at 38 comments with non-solution drivel. This is big news, yet you and the Insurance journal keep wanting to whine about how percentage-of-income taxation is stupid when the charging method is okay, but the long lines, rationing care, and death panels are SOP. This kind of selective comment approval will be highlighted to editors of Insurance Journal since you wouldn’t know a great breaking story if it bit you on the nose. You are not winning friends and influencing people, and frankly, neither am I.
Go away Bernie.
Any new system is going to be disruptive until it gets its feet under it. You really won’t get a system up and running well until you have implemented it for 3 years, maybe 5 years. This is a large step for a large population. Why can’t they give all Americans the plan Congress has now?
Because it would take all the money we earn every year just to pay for all Americans to have the plan Congress has now?
Why is it good enough for congress, but too good for us? Can’t we all agree that is a problem that should be resolved? Why should I pay for someone else to have a better plan than I can afford for myself?
Conservatives generally consider the CBO to be left-of-center. And here are their key findings about Medicare for All:
1. Administrative expenses would likely go down (keep in mind admin. costs are a small part of health care costs overall. Doctors and hospital costs are the key issue).
2. Wait times would go up.
3. Treatments widely available today would sometimes be denied under a Big Government System (the way ALL single payer systems work).
4. Taxes would go up, WAY up.
Polls show that a vast majority of Americans reject Medicare for All once the factors identified by the CBO are explained to them.
Conservatives: Keep quiet about this. Let the Dems. run on it until we get close to the 2020 Presidential election. Just another loser idea, like Reparations, Open Borders, Free College, Marijuana everywhere, higher taxes . . .
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Have some pride man. At least be original with your attempted insults. Try being clever and amuse me at least.
APRIL 23, 2019 AT 12:59 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
FUNNIEST Clown Quote ever on Insurance Journal! Awesome. (“You dumb. Me smart.”) Terrific. Still laughing.
I don’t know why Insurance journal allows you to post these. They aren’t on topic, they are clearly taking someone’s own words out of context to weaponize their own words against them. This is basically a consistent attack against Craig.
“Polls show that a vast majority of Americans reject Medicare for All once the factors identified by the CBO are explained to them.”
Interesting argument.
Please provide the source(s) for these polls you brought up.
No thanks. Re-read my recommendation to conservatives. Just wait and watch and learn.
Polls show that a vast majority of Americans argue there are polls to support their stances when they’re really just making things up that have no basis in reality.
Hillary is a lock to beat Trump . . .
Polls show that a vast majority of Americans who internally acknowledge they lost an argument retort with straw man arguments and deflections to try and divert attention away from the fact they were caught lying.
Trolls often veer off-topic when credible polls with results with which they are proffered by an opponent. Such trolls disagree with polls of people who lived under a Single-Delayer, er, Single-Slayer, um, Single-Payer system in Cana-duh.
Cana-duh-ian people say their S-P health care system works very poorly due to their Federal Government budgeting 11% of their GDP to health care, which yields hyuuuge delays, mainly due to fee controls on medical care pros, and prioritizing their rationing of service to youth over seniors. In the US, a micro-version exists in the VA Health Care system, which my relatives used…. it sucks as bad as the Cana-duh-ian S-P HC system.
Cana-duh-ians migrate to the US to get health care in numbers because there are delays due to artificial price fixing of doctors fees, shortages of medical pros, and prioritizing treatment of youth over the aged. The number of such ‘defectors from Socialized Cana-duh-ian Health Care S-P treatment’ is approximately 200,000 per year out of a popn of 37M.
re: 2nd post above; error;
Should read ‘credible polls with results with which they disagree are proffered by an opponent…’.
Bear culpa.
Why are you bringing up Canada?
I asked him to supply the evidence that “Polls show that a vast majority of Americans reject Medicare for All once the factors identified by the CBO are explained to them.”
I do not believe there are any polls of Americans which show that.
If I’m wrong, I’ll admit it once I see the link.
If I’m right, Craig should admit he was lying.
I brought up Cana-duh because I can…. and that their system of health care, which is a proxy for ‘Medicare for all’, is a failure as regards QUALITY, QUANTITY, and TIMELINESS of health care treatments.
May need to double check administrative costs. Just read that these are larger part of cost. CBO is speculating. It would be good to see a real plan that has been put together to let us know exactly, or as close to exactly as we can get, how this will be implemented & what all is involved in it. The real pros & cons.
Costs will be driven down in a competitive market, not a market dominated by a single payer (monopoly with no interest in controlling costs – – – they’re passed on as taxes). Taxes to pay the INEFFICIENT costs are increased to cover higher than expected costs… or benefits are reduced or rationed to the young.
When given the option and the financial resources, serious medical care is provided in the United States not in their home country with socialized medicine. Most recently in the news was Mick Jagger who chose to fly to New York and pay to have a heart valve replaced rather than stay in England and get it done for free…eventually. Canadians flock to the US for care every day because wait times are so long in Canada. The Fraser Institute published an article on this December 4, 2018.
You can’t always get the health care you want…. in England.
But if you fly somewhere else, like the US, you’ll get what you need.
Patients who travel to another country to seek health care are referred to as medical tourists. The term arose because many Americans seek less expensive elective surgical, dental, or cosmetic procedures while vacationing abroad.1 Of course, US hospitals and physicians have also long cared for medical tourists from other countries. Now, many medical tourists are going the other way—from the United States to other countries to receive health care. In 2007, it is estimated that 750,000 Americans traveled to other countries for health care.1 In 2017, more than 1.4 million Americans sought health care in a variety of countries around the world.2
The reason more Americans have become medical tourists is simply that they are seeking less expensive health care. Because we have the most expensive health care system in the world, it is not difficult to find countries that offer various procedures at 30%-65% of the cost of care in the United States.2 Other countries can charge less because of lower pay to physicians and other health care workers, much less overhead because patients pay cash, and subtraction of the substantial cost of malpractice insurance.3
Welcome to the Club, Captain Kangaroo!
You are finally on the scent of the real culprit: doctors and hospital costs, which are FAR higher in the USA than elsewhere. But what did Obamacare do? It promised doctors and hospitals that their fees would not change in order to the get the AMA and Big Medicine to support Obamacare. Big Brave Barry didn’t want to fight the power. He just wanted a phony “win”.
Let me know when you Big Talking Lefties want to confront doctors and hospitals. In the meantime, I will keep laughing at your Medicare for All delusions. . .
You’re such a partisan hack Craig. Even when you agree with someone you act like a schmuck.
Oh, poor baby. Maybe you want to read a few of Captain Kangaroo’s many insulting responses to my prior comments, comments that were fair, reasonable and respectful.
Hey, “Boorish”, did you have ANYTHING to refute what Craig said, or are you simply ‘attacking the messenger (of truths)’?
Basically, the private plans subsidize the money losing social programs out the now. If you just had social programs (now) most of the hospitals and other providers would be in tough financial straits. Look at all the hospital and system closures and consolidations in the last 20 years — do we want just one health care insurance provider, really?
There can be ways to cover people caught in between jobs and such but even that is expensive.
Two critical issues, not in any way intended to discredit or criticize Craig:
1. Consistently, the phrases “health care” and “health care insurance” are used interchangeably. They are markedly distinct;
2. If you want to see what Medicare for All will look like, visit the Post Office, or observe the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), the next time you’re at the airport, especially a large one……
I know the distinction between ‘care’ and ‘insurance’.
I’ve seen the VA, and how its patients; i.e. a relative, are not properly treated…. and almost died due to poor care.
Funny; I thought going into bankruptcy for medical debt was disruptive under our current system.
Obama fixed that. HA HA HA HA!
Healthcare reform–yes. Single payor euro style–no! I spent the first 12 years of my life living in Canada and the UK (all my extended family live in Europe still) and the poster child for single payor is Sweden/Finland/Norway. However, people fail to realize that “Scandinavian Socialism” is far more sophisticated than what Bernie is peddling. Sweden, for example, has a very sophisticated government, a highly educated population, and less than ten million in population (and a very advanced economy). If you think that the USA can easily replicate their system you are out of your mind. With all that being said, the current for-profit US healthcare system needs reform badly. Just my two cents, somewhat anecdotal too.
Bernie couldn’t possibly re-create the Scandinavian system; he is a Communist, not a Socialist. The Great Society Programs have failed miserably. LBJ stole trillions from future generations of Americans, both in Medicare / Medicaid, as well as dipping into the Soc Sec. trust fund lock box in ’65. Bernie would be another LBJ, the only distinction being Sanders is a Commie who would tear down the US military to fund a Social Program to keep Dem Commies in power.
Please Yogi, define “communism” for the class and then explain how Bernie even comes close to being one. Then, define, “democratic socialist” and discover that’s ACTUALLY what Bernie is. Enough with the Red Scare already. This isn’t the early 80’s, although we do have a dumb Hollywood actor at the top of the house, so in that way it is similar. Are you going to hang a velvet Tramp next to your velvet Ronnie?
No country of this size can have the Scandinavian system – duh! But, just like with any innovation, are there pieces we can take from it and then create something of our own. Not with a bunch of naysayers out there who don’t want to work with the other side to actually accomplish something. The previous system was the number one cause of bankruptcy in this nation. Something had to be done. And now, that reform needs some further assistance. We all know the risk control process. We identified the exposures, we analyzed them, we examined the feasibility of alternative techniques, we selected the best one, it was implemented, we are monitoring it, and now we review and revise. There are improvements that can be made if those in Washington are willing to work together. But it appears this president is more worried about his ego, image, and his “side” than working with others to actually make some sort of progress. #sad
“Complicated and disruptive” explained…
Complicated: it involves the government, which means bureaucracy and red-tape and many forms to fill out so they can find something that enables them to deny coverage.
‘Disruptive’: …to your life; i.e. you may die while waiting for treatment; e.g. The Veterans Administration Health Care Process. The Cana-duh-ian Socialist Health Care Rationing System with a fix 11% of Cana-duh-ian GDP allocated to Health Care treatments per FY.
fixed 11%, not fix 11%. Bear culpa.
I am astonished at when colleagues do not publish comments that harmoniously build on what was written. Twice now I have experimented with you posting a comment on free-market Percentage As You Earn (%PAYE) finance & mutual medical finansurance, financing pre-existing conditions, insurances, Personal income improvement investments (Piii), with genuine economic incentives for wellness, preventative care, and long-lasting curative care. It was the 12th comment in both cases with on others. You are now at 38 comments with non-solution drivel. This is big news, yet you and the Insurance journal keep wanting to whine about how percentage-of-income taxation is stupid when the charging method is okay, but the long lines, rationing care, and death panels are SOP. This kind of selective comment approval will be highlighted to editors of Insurance Journal since you wouldn’t know a great breaking story if it bit you on the nose. You are not winning friends and influencing people, and frankly, neither am I.
We do not publish comments selling products or services.