Profits Must Not Drive Health Care

The United States is the last major nation on Earth still tinkering with a “health care” system driven by the profit-motive of a few dozen corporations. 

 

Every other affluent nation has acted on the premise that “Health Care is a Human Right” and have each found their own unique methods to provide it for everyone.  Other than Switzerland’s version of privatized, “Obamacare” for all which costs 2/3 of U.S. $10,000+ per person per year, Healthcare in every other nation costs less than half of what U.S. “health care” costs and provide better health outcomes. 

 

The U.S. Taxpayer currently pays 60% of existing for-profit, corporate remedial sick care costs, $6,000 per person per year of the $3.4 Trillion per year total.

 

How does the profit motive pervert the system?

 

Delivery of Care: Is centralized into massive, ever more corporate “medical centers” with doctor’s offices (PLLCs) clustered nearby that all must generate ever increasing profits, are less accessible and also tend to default toward the highest cost/highest profit “treatments”.

 

Drug Corporations (Big PhRMA): have become the most profitable corporations on the Planet by taking publicly funded research, getting exclusive patents on the most “commercial” drugs or minor tweaks to existing drugs, getting FDA approval from their revolving door “regulators” and then spending more money on advertising than R&D while charging extreme “prices”.

 

Medical and Nursing Schools: Since they are heavily subsidized and influenced by the AMA and Big PhRMA, seats in Medical schools are seriously limited and rationed and the curricula at these schools are heavily weighted toward highly profitable surgery and drugs and away from holistic modalities and the actual provision of Care.

 

Insurance Corporations: Their profits and perks skim up to 30% of all “health care costs” compared to Medicare’s 2-3% overhead. They need ever-increasing profits, which means ever-increasing PAYMENTS to “providers” and ever-increasing premiums to provide ever-increasing gross income along with ever decreasing “costs” (denial of care) in order to provide the ever-increasing profits that Wall Street demands of them.

 

The Cure:  The easiest, first step toward cure in the United States will be to pass HR676 – Expanded and Improved Medicare for All (which includes dental and vision). This bill removes that last set of profiteers, the insurance corporations that are one of the two major drivers of ever increasing costs, which would immediately save over 15% of existing costs. 

 

It will also provide us with a Big Hammer to use against Big PhRMA to quickly drive down drug costs as every other nation has done. 

 

Then we can work with our medical professionals toward achieving their preference as well as ours; a more accessible Health Care delivery system that is heavily weighted toward providing holistic, complete, effective care rather than delivering corporate profits.

 

For more information about HR676 go to http://pnhp.org/

 

---------------------------------

 

The Author is a long time Peace and Social and Economic Justice Activist, musician, farmer, computer professional and recently damaged heart patient/sick care “consumer”.  He has been actively involved for decades with the California Nurses Association/NNU, PNHP and other health care professionals and doctors working toward the reformation of the remedial sick care as commodity for profits system by putting in place an effective, affordable Single-Payer System that can drive the repair of the entire broken system.

----------------------------------

Comments

Leroy Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:03pm
The only way socialized medical care can work is by rationing the resources.  It's the only way the government can control the budget.  We have to decide between getting the healthcare we want versus the healthcare the government thinks we need.  Death panels are necessarily part of socialized medical care.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 20, 2018 - 8:57pm
Chet Dude, welcome to Writers Beat, remember to respond to other articles and this one.
 
It is true that the socialist nations of Europe and Asia and even all communist countries all agree that "Health Care is a Human Right," but I have never and I do mean NEVER read from any of those nations actually defining what level of health care is the minimum needed to achieve that HUMAN RIGHT?
 
Now even a very dull person would expect that to be defined. The level of health care in the poorest nation could easily be define as the minimum acceptable lever of health care to comply with what is a right.  Chet Dude, I am sure you will have a higher level.
 
Do we pick the level of health care in the USSR before it collapse since it was an affluent nation, Venezuela a few years ago was affluent, Cuba government would define itself as affluent, Canada is higher on the economic list then America so it must be affluent, England is affluent, etc.. 
 
Chet Dude, put a stake in the ground.
 
Now your are creating another issue, cost comparison of the health care system independent of the actual health care provided. Obama said he would not sign a health care bill sent to him by congress unless it reduces cost for individual families, that they can keep their doctor, coverage, etc..  The bill clearly did not meet his test, but he signed the bill. 
 
The bill sent to his desk and the two bills presented by Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell all were written with significant help from those few for profit health care businesses.
 
Health care before ACA was no where near a free market system. The health care companies negotiated for the patents with the providers, third party payer system.  They received a portion of the money passing through their hand so had every reason to find the highest cost that their customers would accept.  As you said their are few players and the states insured this by breaking up the market into states. Thus each state had a quasi-monopoly of a few players including Medicare that set the price. Medicare is national health care with a board to set prices which is made up of insurance companies and providers.  It is in their interest to set as high up to the cost congress would pay.
 
Chet Dude the board that set price for national Health care systems is a similar board to Medicare.  ACA had such a board also.  The effect is the same, cost are set as high as the market will bear. The problem with national health care is that the demand is uncontrolled by cost since cost are evenly distributed to tax payers and unrelated to the care each person receives.
 
Chet Dude have you ever gone to a dinner where someone else is paying or where the cost is split evenly? We all have. What happens is that most people purchase the highest meal since they know that they will pay for others that will choose a very high cost meal. They want to get the most value from their money.
 
Tax payers only want to pay for the health care they receive and since on average the vast majority of the population are health the amount of taxes that citizens will pay is below the cost needed to pay for the demand, remember that dinner. So with the money coming in capable of paying for a limited amount of service then not all the demand will be served. Waiting list are used to reduce cost in every national health care system.
 
Chet Dude waiting for service is weighted to favor the majority of tax payers wellness healthy care and care weighted to get them back to paying taxes. This is the the definition the nation says of health care that is fair and caring, is a human right. The mix system that you said Switzerland has and America has is a mixture of cost and weighting to balance cost and money put forward. 
 
Dr. Carson and others suggest a mix system where the health care that the health average citizen be paid directly by the patent.  And that each person have a health care savings account.  The poor today have a credit care for welfare so they would get an account funded by welfare.   Thus the free market desire to get the most value from a person money will find the lost cost and quality care in the eyes of the patients.
 
Like home and car insurance, health care insurance will cover catastrophic health care.  The insurance is a third party payer but the patent is involved in the choice and knows the cost.  National health care and private insurance mixed system will cover the population better then each by itself.  The purchase of private insurance will be rewarded with more choices or less waiting.  But everyone will receive their right of health care.
ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 1:06am
Leroy.  HR676 is not, repeat NOT Socialized health care.
For more information about HR676 go to http://pnhp.org/
ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 1:15am
Thomas
 
No other affluent nation allows their health care to be driven by the profit motives that drive a few dozen huge corporations.
 
and who should know better than a USAmerican that  "insurance" is not Health Care.
 
I'm afraid your privatized "solutions" will leave a lot of folks out in the cold like Nixon/Heritage/republican/Romney/Obama"-care" did.
 
For more information about HR676 go to http://pnhp.org/
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Nov 21, 2018 - 2:40am
Investors may be be tempted to make us sick to profit from making us better.  Like the food industry investing in pharmaceuticals. The financial system is ran by computer programs that predict what would be profitable and what would be a loss and this is what drives the decisions.  Medicine cannot be profitable without being morally bankrupt.  You do not make a profit by making people whole, but you can make a profit if you keep them sick.  This is going on and society with the help of main stream media pretends not to notice.  Those who question must be crazy and so goes the narrative goes.  
Stone-Eater Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:02am
Thomas
 
Why don't you stop that shit about "socialist" societies here in Europe ??? When does that enter your brain that we're social democracies ?
 
Jeez man !@@!
 
BTW: True here in Switzerland health care is no cheap. But it's good. No waiting days or even hours and equipment is first class.
Thomas Napers Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:07am
If not for profit, how would the better doctors get paid more? (hint - without profit there is no way to reward exceptional work)
 
If profit doesn’t work in healthcare, why not remove profits away from all industries?  (hint - profit actually serves to improve services or decrease cost, both of which we all benefit from)
 
Aren’t most major hospitals already non-profits? (hint – the answer is yes)
 
Profits drive healthcare? (hint – the answer is no)
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:09am
Health care is NOT a human right.  you cannot impose slavery upon someone else to privilege the right of someone else.  It is a completely false argument.  Profit based health care doesn't leave people dying in the streets.  And in fact, it creates less of them.
 
Without the motivation to innovate, health care wouldn't be at the level it is in this world.  Without the wildly successful American healthcare system, the rest of the world would still be using leeches to draw blood.
 
It is absolutely preposterous to think health care ANYWHERE in the world today would be at the level it is without capitalist america innovating.
 
But sure, suck on the teat of American health care and grind it into the ground as immoral, while it has created medicines and procedures that will save your life.
 
Show me a schedule of drugs created anywhere else in the world vs those created in america.
 
Show me  a schedule of health care related equipment invented anywhere else in the world that wasn't created in america.
 
 
this is a joke, right?
Flying Junior Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:22am
Well articulated, Ken.  Rush would be proud.  I recall one famous rant by the author and founding father of the modern republican party about good healthcare.  If I am not mistaken, he likened adequate health insurance to a, "house on the beach."  Clearly not just anybody is entitled to receive good care. 
 
Hey Ken,
 
Should we institute a, "Rush Limbaugh," Silver Apple award?  Every good student of the Excellence in Broadcasting Network and graduate of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies can receive the Silver Apple and keep it until another great conservative steps up to claim the prize again.

Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 5:09am
Considering I don't listen to Rush very often, I don't get most of your innuendos
 
But hey!  keep mocking what you have no clue about.  And yes, socialist healthcare in Europe, Australia, Canada would not be advanced as it is today without the innovation of America.
 
To deny that is just stupid ideology.
Stone-Eater Added Nov 21, 2018 - 5:23am
Yep. Health is no human right until YOU get sick, have no job and cash and start to scream and whine.
 
What a poor society is where social attitude is replaced by money and greed.
 
Erbärmliches Pack (google that Kenny and Tommy).
Troll Hunter Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:10am
Leroy and people like him crack me up.  He thinks socialized medicine will have "death panels".  Does he not understand that for-profit health insurance companies LITERALLY have 23 year old bean counters with no medical experience deciding who gets medical care and who doesn't?!  THAT is a death panel.  Medical decisions should be made by doctors, not some cubicle-dwelling nerd who gets paid to DENY coverage to sick people.
 
The stupidity of rightwing Americans just blows me away.
opher goodwin Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:15am
Healthcare in America - overpriced and aimed at the wealthy. If you can't afford it then fuck off - should be the motto of the country.
It's a lottery that puts profit before people.
opher goodwin Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:16am
Leroy - the USA is the very epitome of Death Panels - if you don't have the cover you don't get the treatment - you die!
Or don't the poor count?
Leroy Added Nov 21, 2018 - 7:02am
"Leroy - the USA is the very epitome of Death Panels - if you don't have the cover you don't get the treatment - you die!"
 
Not true.  The middle-class bears the brunt.  If you can't pay, you don't.  Unfortunately, those that can't pay head for the emergency room.
 
But, there is a problem with the American healthcare system.  If you see a doctor or have an operation and have no insurance or it is out of network--assuming you can pay--the amount you are charged is considerably different.  My wife was inadvertently charged for being out of network.  She was charged ten times as much.  There is something wrong with that.  If she had no insurance, she would have been charged even more.  It's all a gimmick.  If you can't pay, they can charge off more.  But, if you can pay, you are screwed.  If doctors and hospitals couldn't charge one patient more than other, going without insurance wouldn't be as huge of a deal.  Medicare for all solves this issue in the short-term.  
George N Romey Added Nov 21, 2018 - 7:07am
There is no "good" way to deliver healthcare.  The "least" bad way would be on a wholesale basis just like we do with police and fire.  Could you imagine if one was required to buy police or fire insurance.
 
The system is about getting people hooked on drugs and constant doctor visits.  Any affordable system needs to be rationalized.  
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Nov 21, 2018 - 7:25am
George - always inventing new drugs so that you can charge more when the old drugs work just fine and the new might come with more side effects - but no-matter, it's about making money.
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 21, 2018 - 8:07am
Chet, where is your stake in the ground?  Afraid to put one down?
 
Profit is not the problem with US health care, I do not care that, <<No other affluent nation allows their health care to be driven by the profit motives that drive a few dozen huge corporations.>>   The real problem is the disconnect in all nations health care systems between value the customer experiences (service and cost) the decision makers.   Go back to that dinner party where everyone pays the same amount.  That is national health care.   America has a menu without costs on the front but cost on the back.  For example five hamburgers on the list vary from $2.00 to $50.00 and the price is arbitrary set.  I discussed why America's cost are high.  That arbitrary set cost are always high in how the USA picks.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 21, 2018 - 8:45am
Chet Nov 21, 2018 - 1:15am This is a laugh, <<I'm afraid your privatized "solutions" will leave a lot of folks out in the cold like Nixon/Heritage/republican/Romney/Obama"-care" did.>>  So your saying that welfare credit cards leaves people out in the cold.  How So?  Read others answer: Thomas Napers Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:07am  & Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 3:09am  
 
All those presidents did not apply the solution Dr. Carlson presented.  The insurance companies (part of the swamp) filled the campaign pockets of these presidents and their opponents.  And in return we get them sitting on the pricing boards and write bills.  as usual you get it wrong Flying Junior Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:22am
 
Minister Peaceful Poet Nov 21, 2018 - 2:40am, (change your name) the only way you prevent what you said is for the money to pass through the customer's hands.
 
Stone Eater Nov 21, 2018 - 3:02am,  so you choose not to discuss the issue.  What else can anyone make out about this rant. <<Why don't you stop that shit about "socialist" societies here in Europe ??? When does that enter your brain that we're social democracies ?{Just playing the renaming game and that gets old after the third or forth change because everyone figured it out for the earlier ones so change the name again. example: the GOP leaders say they are conservative promises agree with tag and then do not actually do what they promised, their not conservatives}>>  Did I miss represent what socialist nations set up as national health care?  I do not think so.  I have a different slant then you but I didn't lie.  The dinner where the bill is split evenly is a good analogy, give a clear image of why none of the systems work.  I agree that Switzerland does not have a pure socialist health care system.  Like America it is a mixture.  So the analogy doesn't apply.  By we are the exception to the general trend of socialist national health care. 
 
George N Romey Added Nov 21, 2018 - 7:07am  I pay taxes so I am required to purchase police and fire insurance.  Just ask the supreme court because that is what they have told me for Social Security and Obama Care.   I have no choice on paying those taxes.
David Montaigne Added Nov 21, 2018 - 8:53am
Health care is already so socialized we might as well consider the possibility - however as Leroy said in the first comment, "The only way socialized medical care can work is by rationing the resources.  It's the only way the government can control the budget.  We have to decide between getting the healthcare we want versus the healthcare the government thinks we need.  Death panels are necessarily part of socialized medical care."  Many people would have to be denied the care they want, because they aren't worth the cost in a system that can't subsidize everything imaginable.  For example, a multimillion operation on a 90 year old?  Nope.
 
What American healthcare needs to eliminate are the legal liabilities that triple (or more) the real cost.  Endless (unecessary but expensive) testing just to cover their ass so nothing was ignored, however unlikely or imprudent wasting money on the test.  If people accepted we will test for reasonable concerns, and might not find every answer or cure every problem - that would be great.  If people accepted that doctors make mistakes, and sometimes you are accepting risk to have surgery, and won't always be entitled to a huge payout if something goes wrong - that would help tremendously.
Stephen Hunter Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:21am
Good article Chet.
The only way that privatized HC will work is if the Federal Gov't takes full control of the purchasing function, and BUYS LIKE WALMART. (I did write a WB article on this a year or so ago) 
The reason why the US cannot make it work, is because of the backroom deals that get made, with Insurance and medical supply/big pharma, bringing out the ugliest parts of capitalism, causing the US citizens to pay about double per person, compared to other nations with the single payer approach. 
Even the study done by the Koch Bros, deduced that the current system is a ripoff to the citizens. 
opher goodwin Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:41am
Leroy - rubbish. I have just had a musician friend who has come from the US with all manner of illness which he could not afford to have treated. He had blood pressure over 200! He had a bad leg, diabetes and other minor things - all remained untreated in the US. He came back here and has received excellent care - at last. If he had stayed in the States he would have died!
John Minehan Added Nov 21, 2018 - 10:23am
"Leroy.  HR676 is not, repeat NOT Socialized health care.
For more information about HR676 go to http://pnhp.org/"
 
H.R. 676 is Medicare for All.
 
How is that "not, repeat NOT Socialized health care?"
 
It appears to be a socialized insurance system, similar to (but more extensive than) Canadian or Australian Medicare or the Taiwanese system.
 
It is "not, repeat NOT" a socialized delivery system, like the British National Health Service ("NHS"), but it does not have to be in order to be "Socialized health care."        
Bob Added Nov 21, 2018 - 12:04pm
If we choose to go with a for profit system we need to shatter the few corporations in control and offer actual competition in the market. The market approach is useless if there is no competition.  We need incentives for people to live healthier lives which would also reduce the cost of healthcare in the USA. For profit healthcare is antithetical to the Hippocratic oath. Fortunately only medical field employees need to apply said oath and not these massive corporate conglomerates. 
 
If the free market is supposed to be the "best" method, it needs competition. There is a lack of competition in insurance and therefore prices are essentially the same throughout the market. I'm fortunate to have a good healthcare plan through my employer but many people in my small town have no healthcare at all. If we want hospitals to be able to keep their heads above water they need to have a larger portion of the money that is wasted by going into the pockets of investors and not the actual infrastructure and composition of the actual healthcare providing service areas. 
 
I don't think this concept is hard to grasp. insurance companies can still be profitable but they don't need to be obscenely profitable on the backs or at the expense of the people within the USA. 
Dino Manalis Added Nov 21, 2018 - 12:20pm
 While prescription drugs should be imported, like everything else, as well as patent reform, hospitals; insurers; and diagnostics ought to be private nonprofits and reduce expenses for consumers.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 21, 2018 - 12:27pm
You just given an example of how I described national health care works in reality.  Ref: opher goodwin Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:41am  "He had blood pressure over 200! He had a bad leg, diabetes and other minor things"  I said, "Chet Dude waiting for service is weighted to favor the majority of tax payers wellness healthy care and care weighted to get them back to paying taxes." Nov 20, 2018 - 8:57pm   High blood pressure and diabetes is cook book medicine, is part of wellness management health care.  Easy to keep people productive citizens.  High cost is easily averted.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 21, 2018 - 12:32pm
Opher goodwin American health care system income comes from more line items of task that can be charged for.  Thus unhealthy people produce more profit.  So long as the insurance companies sit at the bargaining table with providers they will promote unhealthy people because they both make more money.   
 
Only the patent with the money going through his hand and limited will the patent choose better and lower cost health care.  Patents will choose wellness management.
ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:12pm
I'd like to thank Minister Peaceful Poet, Stone-Eater (Yes, I'd prefer the Swiss system to what we have here!), Flying Junior (I sailed one of those in a gale on a lake in Georgia in 1964!), Troll Hunter, George N Romey, Stephen Hunter, Dino Manalis and opher goodwin.

This is the first article I've posted here and the first two comments posted here made me think "Oh, crap, here we go again being forced to waste more of my precious time defending basic truths and facts from free market capitalist ideologues and their banal rhetoric."

Thanks to the rest of you, I don't feel I have to do that here.

Bob has made a few decent points that I'd like to address though.  

First, we already have a for-profit system that has bought and paid for legislation (including the ACA) that allows them to continue to consolidate into ever fewer monopolies*** and constantly increase costs to satisfy corporate needs for ever increasing quarterly profits.

2nd, as most of the other nations have proven, a Health Care system does not need unregulated private corporate monopolies at all!  The first cost savings effect of passing HR676 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All would be to remove private corporate insurance from the provision of Health Care (along with providing a soft landing for most of the good folks currently employed in the insurance industry we don't need).  It will immediately save us at least a half Trillion Dollars every year by eliminated the extra layers of profiteering and denial of care that the insurance corporations perpetrate.

3rd, There has never been a "free market" and never can be.  "Markets" are ALWAYS subject to rules, even if unwritten and have to be in order to function at all.  What has happened here in USAmerica is that the worst people in society have written those rules to favor the few and afflict the many.

PS: "Not for profit" does NOT mean that they don't perpetrate the same health care fraud and price fixing in collusion with insurance corporations that the "for profit" hospitals, etc. do.  The system is entirely corrupt...
 
*** There are now only TWO insurance providers to "choose" from where I live!  They cost nearly the same.  The premiums for my current provider were raised over 200% over the last 2 years while they closed the closest clinic.  Since the incompetence and profit-driven decisions of that provider ruined my heart this year, I will have to spend a few hours in the next few days left in the "open enrollment period" moving to the other in an attempt to gain access to a closer, better cardiologist. Last year there were three providers to "choose from".  If HR676 had been passed in 2010, none of this would have been an issue.
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:35pm
 H.R. 676 is Medicare for All.
 
Medicare for all is Medicare for none.  Medicare goes away under that plan.  It is false advertising.
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 4:40pm
THAT'S IT!  Lets take a sledgehammer to a problem when a toothpick will do!
 
The government ALWAYS runs everything better than the private sector, so let the government control everything!
 
These "basic truths" you talk about are absurd.  You would enslave the health care industry - and in turn create less motivation for people to go into the industry thus creating rationing as there are fewer health care professionals over time.
 
You would destroy the finest health care system in the world rather than fix the government imposed issues that flaw it.
 
Increase risk pools - let insurers sell across state lines.  This reduces insurance costs.
 
tort reform - cap the amount malpractice suits can claim.  This is the single highest cost to doctors and drives a large portion of medical fees.
 
Make it easier to "shop" for care you want.  Easier to find prices.  More HSA allowances.
 
Just get the government out of the way and costs come down dramatically while service stays top notch.
Jim Stoner Added Nov 21, 2018 - 5:12pm
Your "first step" is Medicare for All?  Hardly a halfway approach. 
 
I would suggest that the "public option" might be a better first step to advocate.  Establish its  superiority in delivering service effectively and efficiently, and the public will demand the insurance companies be cut out from the mainstream of healthcare.   At the worst the competition it would add to the markets will reduce the damage present in the current system.
 
The other measures I would suggest are to lower the eligibility age for Medicare (a couple years at a time, with some schedule), which would tend to improve that program's finances, and to provide incentives for small employers and employers of part-time employees to offer access to group programs.  This latter is absolutely necessary if the private approach continues, and it might even get through a Republican Senate and WhiteHouse. 
Politically, this other stuff (Medicare for All, public option, even reducing the eligibility age) will not see the light of day--it will be smothered by the Combine--until (conditionally) in 2021 or beyond. 
ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 5:23pm
Jim, we already have the wildly popular Medicare for A Lot.  It would be much easier and politically feasible to just expand it and extend it to everyone.
 
HR676 does it well.  Please check it out - unlike Obamacare's thousands of pages of legalese, it's only about 30 pages of English.
 
Ken et al - It is not worth my time to respond to memes posted by people who refuse to explore options...
 
PS: Received today:
 
'Internal strategy documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented reveal the strategy that private health care interests plan to use to influence Democratic Party messaging and stymie the momentum toward achieving universal health care coverage.
 
'Over the summer, leading pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital lobbyists formed the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, an ad hoc alliance of private health interests, to curb support for expanding Medicare.
 
'The campaign, according to one planning document, is designed to “change the conversation around Medicare for All,” then “minimize the potential for this option in health care from becoming part of a national political party’s platform in 2020.”
 

'The growing momentum for “Medicare for All” could raise expectations for the next time Democrats are in full control of power in Washington, industry groups worry. They are already pressuring conservative-leaning caucuses in the House of Representatives, such as the Blue Dogs and New Democrats Coalition, to push back against insurgent progressives’ demands.
 
'The campaign has worked with advertising agencies to draw up a series of messages to convince select audiences. Several of the messages, categorized as “positive,” are dedicated to educating the public on more minimal reforms that do not include expanding Medicare. Other messages, categorized as “persuasion” and “aggressive,” are designed to instill fear about what could happen if “Medicare for All” passes.
 
'The strategy exploits familiar themes that have long been used by business groups against new government health care programs, calling for allies to say lines such as “bureaucrats in DC have no understanding of a person’s medical situation and will be making decisions about your health care instead of doctors.”.
 
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  Mahatma Gandhi.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi_103630


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi_103630


First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Mahatma Gandhi
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi_103630

ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 5:24pm
Darn!  I wish we could edit our own comments!  I didn't see that added stuff until I hit submit...
ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 5:25pm
Darn!  I wish we could edit our own comments!  I didn't see that added stuff until AFTER I hit submit...
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:05pm
It is not worth my time to respond to memes posted by people who refuse to explore options...
 
Right....we refuse to explore options - like giving the private sector the ability to work, allowing the free market to operate.
 
The only "option" you are willing to explore is having the government take over 20% of the economy with their complete record of inefficiency.
 
It sounds to me like YOU are the one unwilling to explore options.
 
You propose expanding a plan that is already going to go bankrupt by 2025.  How do you plan to pay for it?  alone it doubles the annual federal budget from 3 trillion to 6 trillion.
 
Just someone else looking to bankrupt the country and complain about "the rich"
ChetDude Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:28pm
Ken: We've heard that industry shyte for decades and it's already been entirely disproved by reality.
 
The "private sector" is already in charge of USAmerican remedial sick care and as a result it's costing us twice as much per person for "care" that's rated as #37 (down with Slovenia).
 
The "gub'mint" (we the taxpayer) is already paying 60% of those costs with little to NO control over them.
 
Current "Medicare", the worst, most crippled version of single-payer on the Planet but still wildly popular with USAmericans, with overhead costs of 2-3% compared to private insurance's 20-30% overhead is also subjected to the profit motive of the overall corporate, for-profit, "free market" remedial sick care system that drives "care" and constantly increases "costs" in order to provide ever-increasing corporate profits.
 
HR676 provides for Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. 
 
Get the FACTS at: http://pnhp.org/
Leroy Added Nov 21, 2018 - 6:44pm
The best approach is to eliminate insurance altogether.
Jeff Michka Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:16pm
Kenny peddles only total bullshit, Chetdude.  Nice look at the Medicare for All proposal.  But presume mindless rightists like Kenny won't ever like it, because it gives people something folks like Kenny don't figure they deserve.  If they weren't sooo lazy they's get second and third jobs, putting all that earned money toward healthcare, beause they are lazy, they deserve to die.  Count on Kenny not caring anything about FACTS, since he loves posting LIES.
Ken Added Nov 21, 2018 - 9:48pm
Chet - the private sector has NOT been in charge of health care.  It is heavily regulated.  Insurance especially on a state by state basis.  The free market has not been allowed to manage it in decades  basically since the Great Society and Medicare.  You simply don't know what you are talking about.
Flying Junior Added Nov 22, 2018 - 4:40am
Chet,
 
You can easily delete comments by going to your profile and selecting comments.








John Minehan Added Nov 22, 2018 - 6:49am
Couple of thoughts:
 
---I understand the idea (Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has expressed it very clearly) that Medicare for All won't really increase the costs of health care as it will replace the already existing system which constitutes about 1/7 of our economy, except for the VA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs health care system, and may create some savings through administrative efficiencies.
 
---I point out that, historically, every government health care program (with the exception of Medicare Part D, Prescription Drug Coverage) has been more expensive than projected. 
 
---Additionally, historically,  increasing access has also increased costs.  (True of PPACA, which increased spending on health care which had been declining since the Great Recession, likely a positive in this case but not accounted for by proponents of Medicare for All.
 
---I don't think government health care is bad.  I think the VA is a very good system and uses its IT techno-structure to improve patient care.
 
---The problem with the VA System, which is probably shared by most government programs, is that it does not scale efficiently.  The problem with the Arizona VA was rapid growth in patient census and insufficient facilities.
 
---In a for-profit context (or even in a well-run not-for-profit, growth in patient census means that you can probably get a bank to underwrite an expansion of your service lines. 
 
---In the public sector, that becomes a political, rather than an economic, decision.  Political decisions are more difficult to predict.    
John Minehan Added Nov 22, 2018 - 7:07am
The idea of people buying into Medicare as a "public option" has some merit but it also has significant drawbacks.
 
One advantage is that Medicare is already used in something similar to this proposal for the Totally Disabled, such as end-stage renal patients.
 
However, that also brings up some drawbacks.
 
In the first instance, the totally disabled, like most of those over age 65 draw a social security check  (in their case, SSD) from which their premium is paid.  This is not a show-stopper, there are people who have Medicare for at least a secondary payer who do NOT draw Social Security, for example, since they still work full time and have to pay separately as well, but it is one more issue.
 
More importantly, Standard Part A and Part B Medicare is a circa 1965 Blue Cross/Blue Shield 89-20 Indemnity care, if you can't afford a Medigap policy, can't afford or can't qualify for Medicare Advantage or do not qualify for Medicaid, that 20% patient responsibility can be a real financial hardship.    
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 22, 2018 - 7:58am
Medicare for all is just version two of Obama Care, it is national health care.   This is what happens, have you ever gone to a dinner where someone else is paying or where the cost is split evenly? We all have.
 
What happens is that most people purchase the highest meal since they know that they will pay for others that will choose a very high cost meal. They want to get the most value from their money.  That is why demand always exceeds supply and the cost would exceed the capacity to pay.    So what happens, the one who is paying fixes the menu to a limited set of choices that the payer chooses and the meal is served when the purchaser chooses.    The dinner have to wait.
 
Summaries you do not get the food you wanted and you do not get it when you want.  You get a mediocre meal and items you will not even eat.  Dr. Milton Friedman compared the differences of who pays and who get service.  Four box square you pay/ someone else pays on the side and yourself gets/ someone else gets on the top: 
 
Category I, your spending your own money on yourself. . . . You clearly have a strong incentive both to economize and to get as much value as you can for each dollars you do spend.
 
Category II, your spending your own money on someone else. . . .  You have the same incentive to economize as in Category I but not the same incentive to get full value for your money, at least as judged by the tastes of the recipient.
 
Category III; your spending someone else's money on yourself. . .  You have no strong incentive to keep down the cost of the lunch, but you do have a strong incentive to get your money's worth.
 
Category IV; your spending someone else's money on still another person. . . . You have little incentive either to economize or to try to get your guest the lunch that he will value most highly. 
 
All welfare programs including Medicare today and Medicare for all or  Obama Care fall into either Category III or Category IV.   The Connection between the taxes any individual pays and the spending he votes for is exceeding loose. . . . ,regard someone else as paying for the programs the legislator votes for directly and the voter votes for indirectly.
 
Many, including the bureaucrats administering the programs, will try to get it for themselves rather than have it go to someone else.  The temptation to engage in corruption, to cheat, is strong and will not always be resisted or frustrated. People who resist the temptation to cheat will use legitimate means to direct the money to themselves. They will lobby for legislation favorable to themselves, for rules from which they can benefit. 
 
https://wichitaliberty,org/economics/friedman-the-fallacy-of-the-welfare-state/
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 22, 2018 - 8:07am
Why is the free market so successful is simple.  It is based on Category I.
 
That is why Dr Ben Carson and others suggest that we create tax free health saving account , your money is put a side.   And then you send it on yourself.   Welfare recipients get an account also with a credit card just as they get for food stamps and other welfare programs.  The money they do not use is still theirs.   Cheep catastrophic insurance covers expenses that fall outside the capacity of out of pocket health care account, health saving account. 
Cliff M. Added Nov 22, 2018 - 11:12am
  First I would like to state you can go to hospitals to get treatment if you don't have insurance is the most ignorant,bullshit viewpoint stated by those who oppose a single payer system. They will treat you but the cost is astronomical. A single event can ruin you financially for life taking this route. My daughter took an elbow to the nose at cheerleading practice about 8 years ago. At the time we did not have health insurance and had to sign a waiver to participate in a school sanctioned sport because our schools no longer offer insurance to cover it ,not like when we were younger. We went to the local hospital. 40 minutes later after an ex-ray and 2 tylenols we got a bill for $1400 bucks.
  I totally agree with Jim that a public option would be the best way to proceed. Let those people that aren't covered by a job or union policy have the option to by in for the $150 a month or so Medicare costs.This would put pressure on the private market which is about 2/3 rd's. It would also eliminate the passing on of the costs to the private market buyers of the ridiculous outrageous costs charged by hospitals for treating the uninsured.
  From a moral and economic standpoint it would help put some legs back under many of the down trodden middle class who have been greatly exploited and ignored especially since the Great Recession.Most middle class working people do not have a couple of thousand bucks a month laying around to purchase a family health policy that has any value.
 
John Minehan Added Nov 22, 2018 - 11:12am
"The "gub'mint" (we the taxpayer) is already paying 60% of those costs with little to NO control over them."
 
Given government's unsuitability for the task, why give it the other 40%? 
Cliff M. Added Nov 22, 2018 - 11:37am
John, As Chet stated earlier Medicare has about a 3% vig while the private market is about 30%.Gubmint has become good at two things. Exploit the average American and creating fiscal policy that sends the cash up the food chain. Turning this mess around could make a vast improvement .With health insurance costs more than tripling over the last 20 years with wages basically only growing minimally this situation will continue to deteriorate .Soon the only affordable healthcare will be available to only the poor and those who work for large corporations.Add to that the narrowing scope of private employers that can continue to provide health insurance to their employees.
Cliff M. Added Nov 22, 2018 - 12:46pm
If it weren't for the Democratic Corporate sellouts in the Senate along with Obama and the sleazy Mayor of Chicago we could already have been on our way to a better health care and insurance situation.Corporate political control has become way too great at the demise of the vanishing middle.A country where you have to be either rich or poor to have decent healthcare is absurd.We need someone like Teddy Roosevelt to break up the health care industry and to get it back into a proper perspective. The current conditions leave no one protecting the majority.
Ryan Messano Added Nov 22, 2018 - 4:22pm
The Americans who believe in government healthcare are just like the foolish Indians who once traded Land for worthless trinkets.  There is no form of government control of the individual that is greater than government healthcare.  It’s slavery.  Hitler, Mao, and Lenin all got their starts by promising free healthcare.  I’d die before I accept government healthcare.  It is better to die free than to live a slave.
ChetDude Added Nov 23, 2018 - 12:48am
Cliff M: Since it would still leave the entire structure and corporate incentives to provide ever increasing profits to satisfy Wall Street as the driver of costs and "care", just a "public option" won't do it.  We MUST first ELIMINATE the private insurance corporations who do not provide ANY benefit, they just skim 30-40% overhead and profits from the revenue stream and keep costs/prices rising in collusion with the corporate "providers" and Big PhRMA.  HR676 removes them from the equation with a soft landing for those now employed in corporate insurance corporations. And it will be pretty easy since HR676-Medicare For All would eliminate 160,000 insurance company jobs while creating 640,000 new positions in health care delivery...

John: because with HR676, as the Big Gorilla we will have some control over costs and delivery.  Right now the 40% and their profit motive are calling ALL OF THE SHOTS in the remedial sick care system.

Poor Ryan.  Alas, since it's already the most popular and most likely solution to the corporate, for-profit abomination we're going to force you to pay less for better care whether you want it or not...sorry...

Thomas: Gawd - where to start...

Medicare for ALL is ANTI-Nixon/Republican/Heritage/Romney/Obama-"care" -- it REMOVES the profit motive as the driver of coverage and care.

Health care is not a "dinner check".  

Other than exposing your libertarian loonism and bias as someone who hates to help out anyone you don't think is "worthy of your help" and as someone who thinks it's a truly independent island rather than a member of a larger Community, your jejune "analysis" is irrelevant - but hell and aloha, have fun posting your screeds and we'll get a good laugh out of them.

There has never been and never will be a "free market" as you fantasize it...it's a myth.
ChetDude Added Nov 23, 2018 - 12:49am
A REAL Doctor's take on Medicare for All:
 
'By switching to Medicare for All, we save $500 billion every year just from administrative costs. With Medicare for All, we will stop paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs because we will negotiate with big pharmaceutical corporations. Fighting Big Pharma for cheaper drug prices will result in $113 billion saved yearly.

'In 2018, the average worker contributed 260 percent more to their private health insurance than she did in 1999. Meanwhile, average earnings only increased by 68 percent over those two decades.

'As a physician, I can tell you we are not doing anything in health care 260 percent better than we did in 1999.

'an average physician practice is spending about $83,000 on claims and billing, not patient care.'
 
And there's even more at:
https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-medicare-all-ideal-discussion-thanksgiving
 
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Nov 23, 2018 - 1:01am
ChetDude - I've worked in medical billing for Medicaid and private insurance.  And Medicaid is far more efficient and I've heard that Medicare was even more efficient than that - so I suspect your figures are most likely correct. 
ChetDude Added Nov 23, 2018 - 2:16am
Peaceful: When we were holding street demonstrations, doing television appearences and fighting back against Obama's shock troops to try to get HR676/Medicare for All mentioned at all in 2009/2010, one of our number was a Doctor who headed a 6 doctor practice.  He explained how he could only hire 4 nurses and aids because he had to hire 6 bookkeeper/billing clerks to handle massive work load caused by the 3,600 different permutations of payment forms he needed have completely, accurately fill out for every visit by every patient for the private insurance corporations or he wouldn't get paid. 
 
Medicare/Medicaid was nearly automatic...
Minister Peaceful Poet Added Nov 23, 2018 - 2:24am
ChetDude - I believe it. 
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 23, 2018 - 10:16am
ChetDude, I answered this question and you chose to ignore it<<Thomas: Gawd - where to start...>>   Dr. Ben Carson ran on the popular approach of a free market health care system.   He wanted to expand the 'health savings account programs' that has a track record.  They actually achieve Obama's promises.  
 
Unlike Obama that promises that his health care plan (ACA) will for every family save $2500/yr, keep their plan, keep their doctor, keep the hospital they go to, keep the procedures they can get, keep the specialist.  And I shouldn't forget Obama signed that bill which he said he would not unless in save money. 
 
To top it off ACA doesn't have a health savings account, however; out of pocket spending exceeds the levels my Health Savings account plan set when I started to actually getting reimbursements.   And the cost through my employer was less then double of Obamacare. (the employer contribution matches the employees)
 
You pointed out that the system put into effect in America and approved by a democratic trifecta ~ 1940's doesn't work.  Gave us all those costs.  You ignored that the democrats also gave us segregation, KKK, Social Security, Medicare, VA health care, Obamacare, and  a welfare state which includes the Aid to Dependent Children, Great Society welfare nationalization, Medicaid, HUD, etc.  The present third party payer system like national health care around the world and VA, and Medicare in America all have third party paying and they all suffer from high costs, poor services, or both.   
 
Medicare is building up debt and is projected to have significant debt growth as my generation retires.  The only reason that quality and services have not decreased is that WE VOTE.  We have the expensive FDR third party payer hybrid system that has a high quality and service defining the 'standard.'  So they will loose our votes if they drop below the 'standard.'   Understand that Medicare also provides welfare medicine.  It and Social Security are Bismark 'Pay as You Go' Ponzi schemes to make people beholden to Government,  as 'poor Ryan' said SLAVES.
Cliff M. Added Nov 23, 2018 - 3:16pm
To all those who have never had to purchase insurance on the individual market if you do you are totally fucked.For a family of 4 with an income of $100k it will cost 25% of your income after taxes. The politicians who continue to support and allow this travesty should be sent to the gallows. This economy has pretty much cut out as much of the middle man as possible in most other areas. Why is it allowed to continue with the health industry?
John Minehan Added Nov 23, 2018 - 7:10pm
"He explained how he could only hire 4 nurses and aids because he had to hire 6 bookkeeper/billing clerks to handle massive work load caused by the 3,600 different permutations of payment forms he needed have completely, accurately fill out for every visit by every patient for the private insurance corporations or he wouldn't get paid."
 
There is one and only one "payment form(s)" for physician practices (the CMS Form 1500, in either hard copy or digital).
 
There are a variety of provider rules, all of which are broadly based on the Medicare Regs and Procedure Manuals promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS").
 
These regs and manuals are of Talmudic complexity, however, there is only one form.   
John Minehan Added Nov 23, 2018 - 7:18pm
"Medicare/Medicaid was nearly automatic . . ."
 
When I started working in the field, about 21 years ago, Medicare, although it reimbursed at a relatively low rate, was the source of cash flow for most practices, as it routinely paid net 45 days on a clean claim.
 
Those days have passed and there is a lot more of the 45 day prompt payment dance" with Medicare than there used to be.  This might be a function of the increased use of Medicare Advantage, which is partly administered by private payers.
 
Many primary care practices do not par ("participate" or take the insurance) with Medicaid as the reimbursement is so low.
 
Specialists who often have hospital-based practices often par with Medicaid where the hospitals they have privileges at do. 
John Minehan Added Nov 23, 2018 - 7:35pm
"John: because with HR676, as the Big Gorilla we will have some control over costs and delivery.  Right now the 40% and their profit motive are calling ALL OF THE SHOTS in the remedial sick care system."
 
I think there are better alternatives, under the rubric of MEWAs.
 
Trump has proposed a version of this, let's see if anyone does the homework.
John Minehan Added Nov 23, 2018 - 10:48pm
"The present third party payer system like national health care around the world and VA, and Medicare in America all have third party paying and they all suffer from high costs, poor services, or both."
 
India does not have this and Singapore uses mandated HSAs.  But I can't think of another country that does not mostly use some form of insurance.
 
VA isn't really an insurance program at all.       
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 24, 2018 - 2:53pm
John M, please define things for use people that do not work in the health care industry.  I got lucky get the correct definition [MEWAs Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)].   I usually get the strangest definitions of abbreviations.  That goes for everyone.
 
John your trapped in the system and can not see out.  You think that you can only choose from what is is the box that the politicians and bureaucrats want to give you, pick for the choices that make and keep the swamp rich.  As you can see, <<I think there are better alternatives, under the rubric of MEWAs.>>  Why are you limiting yourself to this?   
 
Dr Ben Carson got a lot of support running on HSAs.  "Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) were approved by Congress in 2003—part of the largest expansion of government intervention in medicine in 40 years—and became law in January 2004.
 
HSAs were preceded by Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs), or Archer MSAs (named after longtime proponent, Rep. Bill Archer, (R, TX), which were also created under a major expansion of government intervention in the medical profession."  Ref: http://afcm.org/hsahistory.html 
 
So to expand this program would put the solution in the box and introduce free markets health care and hopefully eliminate the family practice paperwork jungle.   We should see a big reduction in costs as doctors compete on price and quality for the majority of the visits that patents have.  
 
We also to get around Obamacare have seen the religious organizations insurance cooperative that directs money from members to service providers, pass through service so is not an insurance company.
 
We see the medical clinics that sell a range of services for one monthly fee and no limit on usage.  This also includes some services that are subcontracted out.  
 
Trump has also broken the state monopolies that restrict selling insurance across state lines and broke the restrictions on who can form groups that the swamp has make huge money on.  The back of the individual insurance for self employed or small business employed is broken.   It took a big lobbying group to get relief from the scam of the big insurance companies preventing the formation of groups to purchase insurance.
 
It is time to tell the insurance company swamp to go away.   And to replace it with a government swamp is not a solution.
ChetDude Added Nov 24, 2018 - 8:59pm
For us Pro-Health Care types.  Some interesting in depth information about the competing bills and some of the perverted "incentives" that are baked into the for-profit corporate remedial sick care for profit system...
 
The Importance of Aligning the House and Senate Versions...
 
'In aligning the bills, House members should, in our view, adopt some aspects of the Senate’s bill, notably its repeal of the Hyde Amendment that forbids using federal funds for abortion, as well as its greater specificity. But Senators should adopt the House bill’s payment strategies and commitment to non-profit ownership of health care providers.'

https://popularresistance.org/importance-of-aligning-house-and-senate-single-payer-bills-the-right-way/
 
By two of the lead authors of the HC model published in JAMA that was used as a basis for HR676...
ChetDude Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:07pm
Thomas: nice strawman there...
 
Since it left the entire greedy bunch of profit taking leeches in control of USAmerica's corporate, for-profit, remedial sick care industry and it's profit based "delivery system" and since I worked tirelessly FOR HR676 (from the 90s through today), you will NEVER hear me defend that abomination that was written by the sick care industry, Nixon/Heritage/Republican/Romney/Obama "care"...
 
Try staying on topic, 'K.
 
As for HSAs - same problem, bunky...the fox is still left in charge of the hen house...
 
Until the GOAL of the Health Care System is People's HEALTH and NOT CORPORATE PROFITS, we lose...
ChetDude Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:09pm
Thomas: Strawman II
 
You have NEVER addressed the structure of for-profit remedial sick care and it's perversion of the delivery of care.
 
THAT is the primary subject of my piece that you have not successfully refuted at any level...
ChetDude Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:13pm
John, Thank you for partially addressing the subject.
 
Alas, MEWA is just another way of keeping the fox (profit motive) in charge of the hen house and tying "health care" to employment -- an AWFUL idea that was adopted in the early 40s and helped get us to the sorry state we are in...
 
As opposed to the Europeans who had as their goal Health Care and figured out (individual and unique) ways to finance it while controlling costs without harming the quality of care.  NONE of them opted to allow private corporations to completely dictate coverage, costs, prices or standards of care or delivery for their systems...
A. Jones Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:27pm
the profit-motive of a few dozen corporations. 
 
Wrong.
 
The profit-motive also powerfully incentivizes the thousands of small, innovative, start-ups, as well as incentivizing thousands of innovative scientists in academia (many of whom leave for private-sector startups). Most of the progress in healthcare comes from the U.S. — not from the UK, Canada, or Scandinavia — and most of that comes from the innovative startups and academia, not from the established, incumbent pharmaceutical corporations, which are (understandably) "risk averse" and thus more driven by protecting shareholder value.
 
Those in the UK, Canada, Scandinavia, Brazil, et al., who still have functioning left hemispheres (i.e., those who can still think) give a silent prayer of thanks to the semi-private, semi-profit-driven system of the U.S., because without it, their own systems of universal healthcare (single-payer or not) would constantly be using yesterday's less effective drugs, medical devices, therapies, and treatments. In fact, some of those "universal" systems (e.g., the UK's NHS) are content with yesterday's less effective treatments because the more effective newer ones (again, mainly invented in the U.S.) are too expensive for their bean-counters to justify using tax revenues to purchase, license, and subsidize. So if cancer survival rates in the UK are significantly lower (for NHS patients) than they are in the U.S., they don't really care: the higher death rates from cancer mainly apply to retired senior citizens who simply consume tax revenues rather than pay into the system. The NHS's tacit attitude is: "You're a burden on the system; so good bye and good riddance."
 
All you have to do is read the British press to learn about this, as well as reading about scandal after scandal.
 
Not surprisingly, Canada is even worse. The wait-times and level of care are so horrible that many patients simply come south to the U.S. for the newer drugs and whatever procedures they need.
 
As for Scandinavia, Sweden in particular has been privatizing its healthcare system for several decades, and there has been a center-right government in power (in general) since the 1990s when the electorate realized the country was simply going broke trying to finance its bloated welfare state. Even the "progressives" or "democratic socialists" (when they momentarily obtain power in government) dare not bring back the welfare state. The Swedes realize it's an economic dead-end.
 
You haven't done any homework on this issue, nor have you thought through the economic (and therefore ultimately political) implications of claiming that "healthcare is a right." It isn't. Just because people need something — food, clothing, shelter, education, etc. — doesn't make that thing a "right." 
 
"Need" does not equal "Right."
John Minehan Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:48pm
"As for HSAs - same problem, bunky...the fox is still left in charge of the hen house..."
 
Since HSAs are your own pre-tax dollars in a self-directed account, how is the "fox left in charge of the hen house?"
John Minehan Added Nov 24, 2018 - 9:53pm
"As for Scandinavia, Sweden in particular has been privatizing its healthcare system for several decades, and there has been a center-right government in power (in general) since the 1990s when the electorate realized the country was simply going broke trying to finance its bloated welfare state. Even the "progressives" or "democratic socialists" (when they momentarily obtain power in government) dare not bring back the welfare state. The Swedes realize it's an economic dead-end."
 
True.
 
Even before that, those healthcare systems were a LOT more decentralized than contemplated under HR 676.  Those systems tended to leave control at the local level. 
A. Jones Added Nov 24, 2018 - 11:26pm
Even before that, those healthcare systems were a LOT more decentralized than contemplated under HR 676
 
Quite so. Thanks for the clarification.
A. Jones Added Nov 24, 2018 - 11:38pm
Until the GOAL of the Health Care System is People's HEALTH and NOT CORPORATE PROFITS, we lose
 
Conversely, the GOAL of the NHS in the United Kingdom is to spend as little of the People's TAX REVENUES as possible. The accountants in ultimate charge of the NHS use algorithmic criteria called "QALY" ("Quality Adjusted Life Year") and "ICER" ("Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio") to determine which NHS patients deserve what kind of treatments. It's all based on those numbers, not the needs or wants of the patients, their doctors, or their families.
 
How's that for "caring" about the patient's health!
ChetDude Added Nov 25, 2018 - 12:42am
John Minehan: The foxes are the insurance corporations, the ever more centralized, ever more corporate medical centers and Big PhRMA...  HSA's will still leave the drive for ever-increasing corporate profits to drive the system.
 
Alas, Scandanavia is increasingly becoming a bad model.  Since those are still capitalist states whose Working Class were able to drag more concessions out of their capitalists early on but are becoming more poisoned by the brand of global capitalist propaganda being pushed at the END of the fossil-fueled, capitalist age...
 
I recommend the Cuban model of Health Care Delivery...affordable, accessible and even though they only spend about $400 per person per year to our $10,000+ per person per year, they are at the same level as USAmerica on the Health Outcome Rankings...
 
Great Britain's NHS has been at the mercy of the execrable capitalist monsters in the Conservative(sic) and "New Labour" parties for decades...Thatcherism and Blair-ism have been busy eroding their excellent system...
 
But then, I guess you prefer USAmerica's Corporate Death Panels to anyone else's system of providing care, right guys?
ChetDude Added Nov 25, 2018 - 12:43am
PS: Great Britain thanks to Thatcher and Blair-ism has become the closest analogue to vulture capitalist USAmerica...and not a great example to follow...
A. Jones Added Nov 25, 2018 - 5:34am
Cuban has one of the worst healthcare systems in the world. Cubans know that for a fact, as this video (one of many on the web) adequately portrays.
 
Cuba has long had an institutionalized, codified, rigidly enforced 3-tier healthcare system: 
 
1st Tier = Foreigners paying with hard currency.
2nd Tier = Cuban elites (government officials and celebrities).
3rd Tier = Common Cuban people (see above video).
 
Havana has a population of about 2 million people and there are 2 pharmacies in the entire city, both run-down with empty shelves. Commoners require a prescription for any kind of pharmaceutical including aspirin and Tylenol — both of which are in short supply. Lefty twit Opher Goodwin on WriterBeat claims (in another thread) that teachers ought to be "well paid" (whatever the fuck that means, since he cites no specific number as a salary); yet doctors in Cuba — who surely work as hard at what they do as public school teachers in the U.S. and UK do — are paid an average of $40/month ($67/month if they're a specialist). Many doctors enhance their income by selling drugs in short supply (e.g., the above mentioned aspirin and Tylenol) on the black market . . . because as any economy understands, a "black market" is, in fact, the actual MARKET, in which prices adjust to the demand given the available supply; so although the price of something like aspirin might be high, it's always available when needed
 
Cuban doctors are civil servants of the Cuban government, and are required to make "house calls" in their local communities for the purpose of reporting back to the state anything that might be negatively affecting the health of the people (which, of course, could be anything the state defines as "negatively affecting the health of the people"). In the U.S., this sort of practice would be known as "Invasion of privacy", and there are already amendments to the Constitution expressly forbidding it for any reason.
 
Cuban doctors are instructed by the state to terminate "problem" pregnancies (e.g., premature, low birth weight, etc.), after which, the death of the infant is recorded in the category called "Still Birth" rather than in the category called "Infant Mortality". So if anyone tells you that Cuban healthcare has succeeded in keeping "infant mortality" low, you can call them out on it: it simply calls "still birth" what are in many cases clear instances of "infant mortality".
 
Finally, any Cuban doctor who complains about the Cuban healthcare system is treated as an "enemy of the state" and incarcerated as a political prisoner.
 
ChetDude, Goodwin, and other leftover lefties suffer from the same dark psychological malady as many others on the left who tout (without having done any homework) the beautifies of socialism: they pretend to love the poor and the working class but they really don't (Orwell pointed this out many decades ago in his works). They don't love the poor or the working class at all; they merely hate the rich and the very successful. And that isn't the same thing at all.
A. Jones Added Nov 25, 2018 - 8:41pm
Another video on the reality of healthcare in Cuba.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 25, 2018 - 10:34pm
ChetDude,  quit a laugh, "As for HSAs - same problem, bunky...the fox is still left in charge of the hen house..."   Health Saving Accounts is not controlled by the government at all just as 401K accounts are not controlled by the government.  They sent parameters of the maximum amount that will not be taxed for 401K and Health Savings Account.  You can put more money into the account and if you take money out for other purposes then you pay tax.  So government does define what is a medical expense.   
 
So how is HSAs 'bulky' explain!
 
Please explain beyond giving Tax relief how the Government is a 'fox in charge of the hen house'  Tell me what is the hen house?
 
When the patents by using his or her own prerogative to get what health care they want pays for it themselves.   That knowledge of price and quality will put them into a good position to judge insurance purchased for catastrophic events.  We already do this for car and home insurance and those markets are not running away and there is a lot of competition.   
 
The government is involved in regulating those insurance companies and the owner has a place at the table because he can vote with his feet and purchase a different polity.  The same will be true in health care.  The same thing happens when we purchase anything.  We can vote with our feet and there are more then enough providers to choose from.
 
The problem of all national health care systems or the present third party payer system is that the patent is not at the table to negotiate price, quality, and choice.         
Cliff M. Added Nov 26, 2018 - 9:10am
Health savings accounts are nonsense to the majority of people who can not afford decent health insurance. Comparing health insurance which costs 10 times more than car or home insurance is another moot point.Providing decent health insurance at a reasonable price is nothing more than an added expense that will eat away at profits of the healthcare/health corporate insurance monopoly. The private insurance approach has shown time and again that government has become the last resort of providing decent health insurance to the majority. Could you imagine if there currently was no Medicare to support the ageing population of baby boomers ? In this day of the GIG economy private health insurance is becoming a luxury for most.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 26, 2018 - 7:04pm
Cliff M., DID YOU EVEN READ the few times I mentioned HSA?  Doesn't seem that you did.   And all the exaggerations in your rebuttal.  <<majority of people who can not afford decent health insurance. . . . government has become the last resort of providing decent health insurance to the majority.  Your talking about MEDICAID that has no where near a MAJORITY and even Obama didn't expand this minority to anywhere close to a MAJORITY>>
 
First the reason health care cost so much is that the the patent is not present when a price is determined.  Government or an insurance company is spending the patent's money for them.  I can not think of anyone that is as frugal as a person spending their own money.  Health care cost will drop significantly when the majority of health care people consume in a year  comes our of the patent's pocket or a fixed welfare account. (people who can not afford decent health insurance will be getting welfare healthcare  "government has become the last resort of providing decent health insurance")   HSA will provided higher quality, better service, more choice, and at a lower cost just as the supermarket does for the products we purchase.   
 
Government health care systems is analogs to supermarkets for the citizens of the USSR, little choice and often empty shelves.   
 
Third party payer systems doesn't have a analogous model in the market.  The best I can come up with is a game show with three doors and you do not know what is behind them but you put money down for one.   
 
Your trying to compare health care to car and home.  This is an apple, orange, and pineapple comparison that no one would consider is possible.  .  
Cliff M. Added Nov 26, 2018 - 7:38pm
Thomas , What is it going to take to give patient's the right to shop for the insurance they want ant need? The healthcare lobby is happy with the profits from the current system and will fight tooth and nail to stop it from changing. I stand by my comment that health savings accounts are garbage. I f people were in a position to save to pay for a service that has a good chance of not being needed there wouldn't be the mess we have now. I'm not talking about medicaid which is free to the people who exist at the poverty level and below. Medicare is not free and currently costs a couple of hundred bucks a month depending upon what coverage is needed.Medicare for all is exactly what is needed to provide competition to the private insurance industry .There should be nothing mandatory but the option for people who fall in the middle and are not in a position to make a major investment .What shape would and will this country be in especially now that the baby boomers are soon to out number the young in this country? A trillion dollars can be put on the arm for the wealthy for tax cuts and highly profitable corporations but turn your back on the ordinary American wage earner. This country is turning to shit  and the greedy motherfuckers who own the politics can kiss my ass and eat shit. Please excuse this rant for it is nothing personal. I will be 62 years old in a couple of months and have seen the health insurance and many other situations become one sided and have gone from decent to poor to ridiculous. I have seen and had enough. Reasonable is no longer an option.
Cliff M. Added Nov 26, 2018 - 7:51pm
The bottom line is Something is better than the nothing which 35 million Americans and growing currently have under the current system.Having health insurance security would also help greatly with the stagnant wage levels which have prevailed since the vulture capitalism period began almost 40 years ago.
A. Jones Added Nov 27, 2018 - 12:18am
The private insurance approach has shown time and again that government has become the last resort of providing decent health insurance
 
Except it's beyond serious doubt that government has done everything possible to make the private insurance approach increasingly expensive for the majority (much of that was done with the consent of the private insurance industry, by the way). Abolish government interference with the private approach and simple market discipline — like competition, for example — will perform its usual function of incentivizing private firms to 1) innovate, and 2) reduce its prices. Can't think of a single exception to this in any other service industry, so there's no reason to believe that health insurance, per se, is immune to normal market forces of supply and demand. I doubt you can think of any exceptions, either.
 
Finally:
 
You've struck many of us here on WB as a lazy crybaby, full of excuses ("I'm 62 years old!!!") as to why you refuse to take steps to acquire new skills in the computer age. Got news for you: No one here on WB, or in the rest of the US for that matter, owes you a thing. We don't owe you a living to continue as a pre-digital-age carpenter; we don't owe you health insurance; we don't owe you health care; etc. Why would you believe we do?
 
Seems to be part of the mental illness of the political left that the world owes them something; and if that "something" is not forthcoming, they believe the coercive power of the state is a perfectly moral and satisfactory way of extracting it from other people.
 
I used to think that position was unjustified and reprehensible but now I think it's just cowardly and pathetic.
A. Jones Added Nov 27, 2018 - 12:27am
What is it going to take to give patient's the right to shop for the insurance they want ant need?
 
Freedom. Remove government entirely from the private insurance market. 
 
ObamaCare didn't give consumers the right to shop for the insurance they wanted or needed, right? It imposed so much compliance regulation on private carriers that many of them went out of business entirely, leaving buyers of insurance with fewer choices than they had before ObamaCare. Yet instead of blaming the design of the legislation itself, the left (as always) looks for scapegoats by blaming "capitalism" or "the greed of the insurance carriers", etc. Insurance providers are no greedier than cellphone providers, yet the latter have been forced (i.e., incentivized) to innovate constantly and to lower prices. The result: more and more people of limited means have more and more access to better and better products. No surprise there. That's the normal work of capitalism.
 
But please continue complaining that you're 62 years old. We love hearing that excuse for wanting even more government mandates over health insurance providers.
Cliff M. Added Nov 27, 2018 - 7:20am
A Jones, Your horseshit and drivel is the same crap I have been hearing for years from those interested in protecting the status quo. I do not have to make excuses to anyone for working hard building America for more than the last 40 years. I have earned enough to raise and support a family of four. Changing the system is not in the interest of those who have and are exploiting it. Doing away with regulation and a failure to deal with the illegal immigration mess is a direct result of the disappearing middle class and has ruined the construction industry. I have built hundreds of custom homes, churches, schools,office buildings and too many other things to list. If you want to call me lazy you are just another worthless piece of shit that can below me. Why don't you get back to figuring out how you can exploit some other people without getting off your own useless ass.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 27, 2018 - 8:29am
Cliff M., I am sure your not alone, "The healthcare lobby is happy with the profits from the current system and will fight tooth and nail to stop it from changing. " and, " I stand by my comment that health savings accounts are garbage."   
 
One the first part, the people that put products on the shelves of our supermarkets and other stores would love to have the profits of the healthcare lobby, but the nature of the customers with money able to vote with their feet is to always drive to lower costs, better service, and more choice.  At Adam Smith observed, "key insight was that both parties to an exchange can benefit and that, so long as cooperation is strictly voluntary, no exchange will take place unless both parties do benefit. ... Adam Smith put it, an individual who "intends only his own gain" is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it.  By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."  
 
On the second part, I have been observing the discussion of health care since Clinton proposed national health care.  Read many articles on national health care around the world and have also read the proposed alternatives.   Health Savings Account (HSA) is the only one I founded that incorporates human nature that Adam Smith so accurately presented, see above.  Smith is basically saying that humans always will be pursuing life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  When these three are denied the results is a revolutionary effort against the governments, that is what history teaches. 
 
I am open to hear about any other approach that is also based on human nature that Adam Smith and the Declaration of Independence presents?   I challenge you to put one up for this discussion, Cliff M.    Is HSA perfect,  absolutely not.  It does require the effort of people to work, thus vote with your feet mean that working to find when "both parties to an exchange can benefit."  But the free market experience shows that this is more successful to a higher rate that any other. 
 
Adam Smith also observed, "an individual who intends only to serve the public interest by fostering government intervention is "led by an invisible hand to promote" private interest, "which was no part of his intention.". . .   "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."   So government is not capable of making a better choice.  Corporations like insurance companies and mega hospital corporation are acting in their own interest just as government is.  So the Adam Smith's observation also applies for the present American third party payer system.  
 
Cliff M., present an alternative and also if you can one with some track record.  HSA does have a track record to use so at least those problems already identified can be minimized.   Show us how it is based on human nature.
Cliff M. Added Nov 27, 2018 - 10:51am
Thomas, Back about 20 years ago I was able to purchase good insurance plans as an individual by paying $90 bucks a year to join a labor union group.For some reason this option was eliminated. Why do employers get to write off employee health insurance as a direct business expense while the individual does not. How many seniors are currently unhappy with Medicare? Level the playing field . As in everything else the large insurance corporations have gamed the system taking advantage of every situation possible. The majority and especially the middle has no one covering their backs. The government has become the last resort.Sad to say as corrupt as the politics has become the middle has no one else to protect them from exploitation by the big money interest's.
A. Jones Added Nov 28, 2018 - 6:39am
I have been hearing for years from those interested in protecting the status quo.
 
I'm not protecting the status quo, you dumb fuckwit; I'm trying to dismantle the status quo by removing the cause of high prices and diminishing choices in the health insurance sector: i.e., lack of competition. And since it's well known that lack of competition is the result of an industry being protected from competition (or even the possibility of competition) by means of government legislation, the answer to the problem of "lack of competition" is to remove government legislation preventing newcomers from entering that sector, or preventing existing incumbents from competing against one another (which describes the situation in the health insurance sector). Remove the cause of the problem and the problem removes itself.
 
The real problem is you're just plain stupid — far too dumb to be arguing about anything requiring even a minimal knowledge of economics. Fat, dumb, lazy working stiffs like you are content to engage in the sophomoric practice of bitching about the state of the world without making the effort to understand how that state came about.
 
And now you're bragging about how great the past was compared to the present (some things were better back then but most were not); and strutting around like a cock-of-the-walk declaring that manual laborers like you "built America." You're wrong. What about the tool manufacturers who made the tools you use; didn't they contribute just as much as you did? Yes, I think so, since you wouldn't be able to brag about "building America" if you had to drive screws into planks with your fingernails. What about the steel manufacturers who made the steel used by the tool manufacturers; didn't they contribute just as much toward "building America" as the tool makers and the manual laborers? Yes, they did. Without them, tools would be made of less robust materials and would be of less use. What about the miners mining the ore used by the steel manufacturers to make the tools in use by the manual laborers; don't the miners contribute just as much to the "building of America" as those others? Yes, they do. What about the truckers and train operators transporting the ore; don't they contribute just as much as those others? Yes, they do. What about the manufacturers of the trucks and the trains? What about the farmers who feed the truckers, train operators, miners, steel manufacturers, toolmakers, and manual laborers? What about the makers of fertilizer and pesticides who make it possible for the farmers to cultivate lots of produce without throwing half of it out, thus helping to keep prices down for everyone?
 
There's an old saying: "Cobblers think there's nothing like leather!", which means, shoemakers believe leather is the most important thing in the world; without it, your shoes wouldn't last so long and you'd probably have to content yourself with walking around barefoot. Try "building America" in your bare feet.
 
Everyone contributes to overall productivity in a social organization based on division of labor; workers like you — whose red necks are fatter than their heads, and whose hands are full of "honest callouses", and who believe themselves the indispensable "salt of the earth" — are no more important than anyone else; in fact — given the speed and enthusiasm with which you're being replaced by computers and automation — you're far less important than you imagined.
 
You're a dinosaur, Cliff; big, dumb, lazy, inflexible, and unwieldy. And now that the "comet impact" of A.I., computers, and automation is a present reality in the labor force, you're also useless and due for extinction.
 
My initial advice was going to be "Go fuck yourself" but better advice would be to find some way of updating your skillset to something more in line with the requirements of the 2nd decade of the 21st century.
 
My secondary advice, however, is still "Go fuck yourself." You're a serial complainer, a crybaby, and an embarrassment.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 28, 2018 - 8:23am
Cliff, <<Why do employers get to write off employee health insurance as a direct business expense while the individual does not. >>  The government during the FDR or Truman trifecta (control also Congress) wrote that law and the DIM president signed it.  Ask you DIM congressman or their party office.  As I suggested the present third party payer system was purposely done.
 
Cliff, so is it fair that <<labor union group>> can create coops to purchase health insurance. I assume your talking about members that work for many different employers.  Cliff, restaurant workers, hair dressers, gas station employees, and many other skilled trade groups can not form a group to purchase health insurance until last year Trump made an executive order to end that prevision in Obamacare and previous policies.   Since it is an executive order the next president can reverse it with their pen.    Again it is no accident that this distension was made.  Unions donate to DIM candidates.
 
Cliff your making my argument that government should be involved in health care.  I am waiting for your list of other health care ideas that are better then Health Savings Accounts and are compatible with human nature, Adam Smith's observations that I presented in this article string.
Cliff M. Added Nov 28, 2018 - 8:45am
A Jones, Ha Ha, I wouldn't expect any other type pf comment from a scumbag like you. By the way I don't recall hearing about how you are going to make America great again.At my age I am still actively engaged in the workforce doing what I can to exist in this armpit the U.S. has become. What is it that you do that makes the world a better place? If you can pleasantly surprise me with something other than talking out of both sides of your mouth.As  a career carpenter I am always aware of opportunities to increase my knowledge  in any area and open to learning new skills. As to the skill of go fuck yourself, this is an area of expertise that I am not interested in or have knowledge of. Why don't you explain how you do it. That and being critical of others appear to be the only skills you have.
Cliff M. Added Nov 28, 2018 - 9:31am
There is an interesting story about a woman who went to the emergency room on Drudge to. She had severe stomach pains and thought her appendix had burst. After a diagnosis it turned out she had an ovarian cyst. She expected to make the visit copayment but instead got a bill for over $ 12 thousand bucks. Anthem her insurance carrier said that the issue was not an emergency and it wasn't covered under an emergency visit. Anthem stated that more than 25% of visits to the ER were not needed and added over $4 billion annually to medical cost's. Go figure?
Cliff M. Added Nov 28, 2018 - 12:37pm
A Jones, I give you credit. You are one of the rare people that have managed to set me off. I have worked hard since I was 12 years old. Got an a for my physical condition from the doctor at my last checkup.Fat and lazy I am not. Stupid maybe.Your right though about expanding my horizons.Being bitter about the way my career turned out after the financial disaster while I was in my prime is something I have to get over.Sorry about being rude.
ChetDude Added Nov 29, 2018 - 3:52pm
Cliff M.  In the not too distant future once Mother Nature's backlash to 200 years plus of burning fossil-fuels for short-term corporate capitalist profits really hits, Carpenters and (REAL) Farmers are going to be 1,000 times more valuable than those libertarian clowns sitting on their elitist a**es trying to push their nonsense that you've had to suffer with in this thread.
 
My (Union) cap is off to you, sir!
 
(As for HSA: what about the majority of USAmericans who can barely make the rent, food and transportation costs and HAVE NO MONEY LEFT OVER FOR HSAs?  Hmmm?  Let 'em die in a culvert somewhere?
 
Even if we ignore, as you do the fact that greedy corporations are raising costs faster than any but the top 1% could keep up with in their HSAs.)
Cliff M. Added Nov 29, 2018 - 6:06pm
Chetdude, In the last 20 years rent has tripled,Buying a set of wheels has tripled, Health insurance has tripled, College costs have gone out of sight to just mention a few things. Wages are pretty much stagnant. How is this going to end up? The picture isn't pretty. With another recession closing in it is going to get uglier than it already is.Big changes are needed if the ordinary American and the middle class are going to have a shot at the American Dream.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 29, 2018 - 7:48pm
Chetdude, again your showing that you opening you mouth without even doing a simple scan of what has been said earlier.   It is really easy to fin 'HSA'.   Try it some time.   <<(As for HSA: what about the majority of USAmericans who can barely make the rent, food and transportation costs and HAVE NO MONEY LEFT OVER FOR HSAs?  Hmmm?  Let 'em die in a culvert somewhere?>>
Cliff M. Added Nov 29, 2018 - 8:35pm
Thomas, I fail to get your reasoning. How do the millions of people that are living in survival mode ,living paycheck to paycheck afford to save for a HSA? Even if they do one decent health issue and they are back to Zero again. I get the impression that those living in a worry free financial situation fail to get the reality of how difficult it has become for millions who are not fortunate enough to be on their employer health insurance. If you could explain how this would help in laymans terms I would greatly appreciate it. I am still waiting to see the better , cheaper health insurance plan that the Republicans were going to repeal and replace Obamacare with.
Cliff M. Added Nov 29, 2018 - 8:53pm
So if I purchase a high deductible health insurance   plan I should save in an HSA the deductible hoping that I don't have to use it so it can roll over into the next year. I fail to see how this would be relevant to many who already living paycheck to paycheck. How would someone who could only afford the high deductible plan be in the position to save to pay the deductible. Sounds like VOODOO health insurance to me.
Cliff M. Added Nov 29, 2018 - 10:03pm
According to The Motley Fool the average Original Medicare receipient in good health incurs $ 7620 bucks out of pocket costs while using this plan. If there are major health issues costs rise substantially. Prescription drug cost's are the largest part.
Thomas Sutrina Added Nov 30, 2018 - 8:42am
Cliff M. I can understand that if Chuck Shumer, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, etc. doesn't say it then likely you haven't hear it.   This is a two party system with a few other smaller parties.  It is not a one party system although that is what you see, and your party seems to have two large branches.   
 
The 2016 primary was a sleeper for you but just to remind you their was another primary for that mystical party, Republican.  And the media that you love put up a fortune to get Donald J. Trump on the ballot for that mystical party.  One other candidate was Dr. Ben Carson.  He promoted Health Savings Accounts and those receiving welfare health care would also participate in  HSA   Also  catastrophic health insurance and government funded program for those on welfare.   http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Ben_Carson_Health_Care.htm 
Cliff M. Added Nov 30, 2018 - 5:50pm
Thomas, First of all I do not love the media. Second putting welfare recipients in an HSA does not make sense to me. Most of those on Welfare are already getting full health coverage on Medicaid.Where is the money going to come from for them to save for an HSA? The small amount that they are receiving already does not amount to much at all. Most of their benefits come from housing allowances and food stamps.
ChetDude Added Nov 30, 2018 - 10:41pm
Cliff M: to fully understand our friend Thomas Sutrina do an internet search on "Libertarian Loon"...
 
Thomas: Listening to Ben Carson talk about Health Care is like getting Hannibal Lector's tips on cuisine for your next dinner party... 
 
Carson is a one trick pony, his hands can perform the mechanics of surgery but HIS brain barely functions outside of that arena...
ChetDude Added Dec 3, 2018 - 4:34pm
Update:
Nov. 30, 2018

In-Depth Analysis by Team of UMass Amherst Economists Shows Viability of Medicare For All Comprehensive plan is estimated to reduce U.S. health consumption expenditures by nearly 10 percent, while providing decent health care coverage to all Americans
 
https://www.peri.umass.edu/images/Medicare_For_All_release_Nov18.pdf
 
https://www.peri.umass.edu/publication/item/1127-economic-analysis-of-medicare-for-all
ChetDude Added Dec 14, 2018 - 4:08pm
Update: 12/14/18:
 
Democrats should focus on Medicare for All.
By Wendell Potter, former Executive in Cigna Insurance corporation.
 
"It’s time for Democrats to stop proposing health care reform that relies on insurance companies to play fair. After two decades in the for-profit health insurance industry, I can assure you they never will. They have no interest in doing anything that might in any way jeopardize profits. Their only interest is delivering profits to their shareholders. From that perspective, the status quo is very profitable. For everyone else, not so much."
 
 
Thomas Sutrina Added Dec 14, 2018 - 7:19pm
ChetDude, the leadership of the organization that wrote the analysis of 'Medicare for all',  Sanders Institute Gathering, the first major event hosted by the think tank founded by Jane O’Meara Sanders and David Driscoll, the senator’s wife and son.  We are talking about a self proclaimed Democratic Socialist and a person that I assumed with Jane honeymooned in the USSR.   Burnie Sanders is a candidate that campaigned on national health care.  Do you take us to be that stupid?  No one would suspect anything but a report that supported her husband's policies.  How about at least an honest attempt at an independent article.
 
Next your on the line for defaming Dr Ben Carson. <<Thomas: Listening to Ben Carson talk about Health Care is like getting Hannibal Lector's tips on cuisine for your next dinner party... 
 
Carson is a one trick pony, his hands can perform the mechanics of surgery but HIS brain barely functions outside of that arena...>> 
 
I think a very simple review of the boards and even being a GOP candidate with a sufficient following disproves the slur that his brain barely function.  Your actually doing more harm to yourself arguments.    Hannibal, really!! 
ChetDude Added Dec 15, 2018 - 6:42pm
I posted a further reinforcement of my arguments written by a former EXECUTIVE FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY -- whose job back then was denying care to increase profits...and who has redeemed himself since then.
 
And are you familiar with the logical fallacy of "shoot the messenger".  Just because you don't like the people who deliver the Truth doesn't negate it.
ChetDude Added Dec 15, 2018 - 6:44pm
Jeebus - you don't have to have a functioning brain to run for pResident -- just look at the big orange turd that WON!