Bernie fans, this is a quick summary of what government health care looks like

[cherryinpa]

(Before the Bernie bus goes hogg wilde do note that I am far less pessimistic on Bernie than most here, but you just need to be realistic about healthcare - its a very delicate subject).

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/19/woman-dies-after-waiting-on-street-for-six-hours-for-ambulance-wales

I've lived and worked in the UK and I can tell you this one thing: the idea of nationalized healthcare is great, but the reality is that a trip to the Doctor becomes like a visit to your state Department of Transport. Yes its free, but there are still long waits, its very basic with lots of forms, complex rules and you're told what you'll get.

This is a world of difference from the system we had under ACA which gave us coverage for all, but choice and quality too.

President Obama gave us something beautiful, but we were too ignorant to realize it.

[Ron Green]

1. My government health care through the VA is top of the line.

I get appointments when I need them, never have to wait for surgery, and my prescriptions are extremely affordable (the VA negotiates drug prices.)

The key is a huge risk pool. That's the only way to keep costs down. Otherwise, such as in the American private system, multiple risk pools increase the investment opportunities for wealthy speculators and the costs to patients.

Everybody In, Nobody Out! That's really the way to do it.

[cherryinpa]

3. VA won't scale nationally

Yes, nice for the relatively small population that needs it and of-cours for you, but it doesn't scale.

Ultimately the same economic factors apply that exist in the UK, France etc.

We want to spend at max X% of GDP on healtcare for Y% of people, so that gives us X/Y per person.

The only way to make universal work is to take choice away.

[Ron Green]

10. What do you mean "it doesn't scale?"

The disabled VA population is relatively sick and fragile. The US population as a whole would pay into a system that serves a much healthier cohort. One risk pool of enormous resources through modest taxes.
The delivery system of course could (would) still be private. But everybody in the doctor's office would be considering your care, not your insurance.
Our % of GDP for health care is now almost 20%. No other country spends this, but our health outcomes are weak.
I think your idea of "choice" is driving a doomed model.

[ChubbyStar]

21. Here is what "it doesn't scale" really means

Blah, blah, blah,.....we don't like it so we will make up a sentence with words that sound important.

[marble falls]

26. Why can't it? One less aircraft carrter would pay for it.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. My VA coverage is so-so. Many things are uncovered, others are difficult to get to...

and if it weren't the VA, I might have had a malpractice claim.

That doesn't mean the VA is problematic overall, or all treatments are problematic, but I did send up finding my own ophthalmologist and a few other specialists.

It's amazing the things the VA doesn't tell you about some of your ills.

[MoonlitKnight]

2. This old trope again.

It has been debunked countless times. Plus the UK system is not the same as M4A.

“ its very basic with lots of forms, complex rules and you're told what you'll get.” - sounds like Aetna. Or BCBS, Cigna, Humana, etc.

Here people use Uber instead of an ambulance, because that service is a disaster in most of the country due to privatization. And you have to go to an in network hospital. But even when you do, you could still get an out of network doctor.

Can we please just stop with the outright lies and bullshit here regarding healthcare?

[cherryinpa]

4. Have you lived and worked in the UK?

I can assure you, its nothing like Aetna, Blue X etc.

Based on personal experience.

Theres a reasons why the unions are panicked by Bernie.

The benefits they've fought for hard and won will be eliminated in a blink of an eye.

[MoonlitKnight]

14. I have not lived and worked on Mars either.

And the UK system has as much to do with Warren’s plan as one on Mars.

But if you lived and worked in the UK you might have had a different experience than a citizen there. But again, it’s not anything like any proposed healthcare plan in the US.
[link:https://www.gov.uk/guidance/nhs-entitlements-migrant-health-guide|

The union negotiated plan argument you now put forth is entirely different. And was best debunked by the union voters in Nevada Saturday. While they have a great plan, they may not always have that job. And the probability of anyone staying at one employer throughout a career is less than getting struck by lightning while winning the powerball. And the friends and family of those union workers don’t have that great union plan.

[MisterFred]

16. Who cares? Sanders isn't proposing a UK-style system. nt

[Mad cow]

7. I was going to say the same thing

This doesn't sound all that different from some of the experiences I've had with my private insurance.

I remember arriving at the in-network hospital at 6 in the morning for a surgery for my 18 month old. As anyone would be, I was anxious about the whole thing. When we got there, the first thing reception did was send us into an office with a hospital employee who informed us we had to pay 10% that morning in order to have the surgery. This was never mentioned during the two phone calls we received in advance of the surgery giving us instructions for that day. When we asked how much 10% would be, the man said he did not know, but "most people just pay $200." We were lucky that we are in a position that it wasn't a hardship, but I still felt extorted while under duress.

[HerbChestnut]

5. The United Kingdom's hospitals are owned by the government...

...and their doctors/nurses are government employees. The NHS is 100% funded by the government. Medicare for All is a national *health insurance* program, which means the hospitals, doctors, and nurses all remain private.

[Kurt V.]

6. this is one type of 17 or 18 countries that have universal health care.

i found this very helpful tho:
https://www.verywellhealth.com/difference-between-universal-coverage-and-single-payer-system-1738546

[Prosper]

8. ACA which gave us coverage for all, but choice and quality too.

ACA is not coverage for all. And because people with less representation get less attention the system is naturally guided toward imbalance. Not affording copays and deductibles and medicine doesn’t get the attention or treatment.

[MoonlitKnight]

18. ACA actually gave us coverage for more

Not coverage for all. There are still millions of uninsured.

ACA was a stepping stone. Time to keep marching forward.

[DanTex]

9. LOL. Seriously? "Waiting lines" is a straight RW talking point.

The data does not support the claim that waiting lines are longer in nations with Single Payer or universal coverage. It varies from country to country, and also depends on the procedure.

And certainly, a single anecdote of an ambulance not being available is not evidence of anything. Try google, this happens in the US too...
https://www.iowapublicradio.org/post/why-ambulance-isnt-always-guarantee-iowans#stream/0
https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/02/ann-arbor-fire-chief-continues-to-speak-out-about-ambulance-delays.html
https://www.mcall.com/news/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pa-erie-ems-20200224-d26b5g2y45b2doc6gfpf5lysgq-story.html
https://www.woodtv.com/news/target-8/lifeline-delayed-ambulances-failed-to-meet-response-times/
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/woman-dies-after-ambulance-doesn-show-police-say/zu3Baj07vYhzDXflixsTJI/

[redqueen]

24. There are lots of right wing talking points used here against m4a

it's disturbing.

[Cal Carpenter]

11. MfA is NOT nationalized health care.

I would suggest reading the plans written & endorsed by Sanders, Warren and others before making such a false comparison.

As for the ACA - I have insurance through the ACA. Thank goodness, because otherwise I'd have nothing. However, it becomes more expensive each year - I am currently paying around 14% of my gross household income on premiums alone. It could be a bit less, but the trade off would be having a $12,500 deductible and we're too old to take chances like that. So my deductible is "only" $2500. Plus out of pocket for co-pays, prescriptions, dental, and optical.

It is FAR FROM BEAUTIFUL. My choices decrease every year, as private insurers pull out of county after county, which complicates things in terms of in-network specialists. My premiums increase each year and have become almost prohibitively expensive. And every year I have to go through the application process even though nothing on my end is changing. More than once I've been required to provide additional documentation to prove my income (even though they already have access to that information and it is always what I say it will be).

It is NOT beautiful, it has some good points and bad points, but the bottom line is that 80 million+ Americans are still under-insured or uninsured.

If we can't do better than this, in the richest country in the world, than we aren't trying hard enough.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. Not true in Canada

Even with some areas experiencing doctor shortages and waits for specialists for non- life threatening illnesses, I have yet to meet anyone who would trade our healthcare system for the US system. (And I worked in the BC healthcare system before retiring last year).

[MoonlitKnight]

19. And those doctor shortages

Are largely due to the massive amount of rural and sparsely populated land masses in Canada.

[Fiendish Thingy]

22. Well some of it is due to Canada's strict licensing requirements

A lot of immigrant doctors driving taxi’s in Vancouver, and my wife, who works in the laboratory, has had coworkers who were doctors in their home countries.

[MoonlitKnight]

25. Yep

A lot of that in the US as well. The various licensing boards control the labor market. And they place a lot of needless roadblocks in front of foreign trained professionals.

[MisterFred]

13. ??? We don't have to look abroad. Medicare & the VA are already gov't run healthcare. nt

[AlexSFCA]

15. I wouldn't even worry about it, it won't pass for a long time

you’d need congress support, there you’ll get experienced legislators running numbers and the final bill may look very different. And in an unlikely case it passes, you’ll also need SC support, cause any law than bans private insurers would be be put on hold by the current SC to be overturned later. There will be no lack of plaintiffs. If anything, it could be a good negotiating tactic. Ok, we didn’t get M4A but Medicare buy-in and/or lowering eligibility age may no longer look “radical” but more like a middle ground. It’s almost trumpian way but from the left side. Any policy proposal would be the least of my concern this election cycle.

[highplainsdem]

17. Liberal Ezra Klein at liberal Vox explained last month that there IS rationing with the NHS:

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/28/21074386/health-care-rationing-britain-nhs-nice-medicare-for-all

[democrattotheend]

23. I read that it's gotten worse recently

Because the conservatives in power deliberately cut funding for it. Which is a legit concern if we do actually manage to get Medicare for All - Republicans will absolutely do the same thing once they get power back. And they can do that much more easily than dismantling a whole system - all they have to do is keep cutting provider rates until there's a shortage of providers and the waits get long.

I used to be a bigger proponent of Medicare for All, but when I started reading about how hard it was to get an epidural while in labor in the UK I started rethinking.

That said, I would like to point out that the UK doesn't just have single payer, they also have government-run hospitals and medical practices. Under Medicare for All the doctors and hospitals would stay privately owned. It would be a system more like Canada, I think - public payer, private providers.