3 ms·

Bernie never spoke about banning private healthcare. I find it amusing you think there is a free market for healthcare in the US. Bernie's main idea is to des

Bernie never spoke about banning private healthcare. I find it amusing you think there is a free market for healthcare in the US. Bernie's main idea is to destroy all forms of monopoly in various industries in the US - banks,healthcare. It's no different than state capitalism ( in USSR ). Bernie is not against the free market. He wants single payer to leverage the free market in healthcare which is dominated by big players on the supply side. You as an individual are free to afford whatever you want. But the govt's concern is improve the standard of living for the average citizen. And all of the world it has been proven time and again that single payer is the best system - empirically. So any arguments you make without any data but on some notion of "choice" will not be as convincing - sorry.

jeremyt 11y ago
Bernie's whole plan is predicated on eliminating private health insurance. In order to achieve the "savings" that he promises, he needs to be able to go to doctors and hospitals and say "take this, or you get nothing". Without that bargaining power, he'll just push the entire health care industry private. That's already happening with Obamacare now (reference all of the health insurance companies stating they are considering withdrawing from the exchanges).
- notahacker 11y ago
  Not really. Private health insurance and fully private hospital care exists in most (all?) states with full state-sponsored medical coverage. Ultimately, if people don't have to pay for health insurance any more, a huge proportion won't. Which means the state becomes the single largest buyer of healthcare, probably bigger than all the other players put together, and so should be able to get better value for healthcare than the private companies ever did. Better cheap treatments than a half-empty hospital. And a state health insurer also doesn't need to advertise itself to consumers or pay shareholders, so it should come out ahead even if it's unable to pay any less per treatment than the private companies. Of course, it's still dire for the health insurers because their customer base shrinks massively when private health insurance becomes a luxury to get people more expensive and faster specialist treatment as opposed to the only way to be able to afford to not die from expensively treatable ailments. But there's no reason to assume that some/most wouldn't continue to provide the option of more expensive and more exclusive healthcare for those that don't trust the publicly funded system or want to beat the queue.
bsbechtel 11y ago
My original comment wasn't about banning private healthcare, it was about a government forcing people to pay for a product or service that isn't acceptable, or actually damages people's lives because it is managed so poorly. The Citizens of Flint still have access to bottle water, thank goodness, but they still have to pay their city water bills unfortunately. The same would go for Bernie Sander's health plan whether or not the service provided was actually worth the price paid. >>You as an individual are free to afford whatever you want. That is not actually true. I'm spent the afternoon searching for health insurance for my wife, who is pregnant, and trying to immigrate to the U.S. Thanks to the 2,000 pages of ACA regulation, there is no clause or loophole that allows us to purchase insurance for her. Your argument using 'data' is not sympathetic nor persuasive to me.
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 11y ago
  > Thanks to the 2,000 pages of ACA regulation, there is no clause or loophole that allows us to purchase insurance for her. Are you saying that the ACA is the reason your wife can't purchase health insurance?
  - bsbechtel 11y ago
    Yes, because before the ACA, there were at least options available, albeit expensive. Her situation is complicated, but now there is pretty much nothing available that she qualifies for. Or worse, if there is, I am unable to locate and communicate with those people who can help me, and the people in charge of helping me are not properly trained (another example of the situation above). I've talked to our State's Office for Insurance, and they're trying to help, but are also frustrated (and very sympathetic) with the situation.
- makecheck 11y ago
  Bernie's real expectation is that things will get better if people get off their butts and take action. I doubt he believes that government programs will be magically efficient and effective without the right people to make them that way. Government jobs are available. You can't really complain about something being "managed so poorly" unless you're one of the people in that organization trying to make it better. Currently the U.S. has a system where doctors' offices need SEVERAL full time staff just to deal with insurance companies, which is insane and nothing like what I have seen elsewhere.

jeremyt 11y ago

Bernie's whole plan is predicated on eliminating private health insurance. In order to achieve the "savings" that he promises, he needs to be able to go to doctors and hospitals and say "take this, or you get nothing". Without that bargaining power, he'll just push the entire health care industry private. That's already happening with Obamacare now (reference all of the health insurance companies stating they are considering withdrawing from the exchanges).

notahacker 11y ago
Not really. Private health insurance and fully private hospital care exists in most (all?) states with full state-sponsored medical coverage. Ultimately, if people don't have to pay for health insurance any more, a huge proportion won't. Which means the state becomes the single largest buyer of healthcare, probably bigger than all the other players put together, and so should be able to get better value for healthcare than the private companies ever did. Better cheap treatments than a half-empty hospital. And a state health insurer also doesn't need to advertise itself to consumers or pay shareholders, so it should come out ahead even if it's unable to pay any less per treatment than the private companies. Of course, it's still dire for the health insurers because their customer base shrinks massively when private health insurance becomes a luxury to get people more expensive and faster specialist treatment as opposed to the only way to be able to afford to not die from expensively treatable ailments. But there's no reason to assume that some/most wouldn't continue to provide the option of more expensive and more exclusive healthcare for those that don't trust the publicly funded system or want to beat the queue.

bsbechtel 11y ago

My original comment wasn't about banning private healthcare, it was about a government forcing people to pay for a product or service that isn't acceptable, or actually damages people's lives because it is managed so poorly. The Citizens of Flint still have access to bottle water, thank goodness, but they still have to pay their city water bills unfortunately. The same would go for Bernie Sander's health plan whether or not the service provided was actually worth the price paid. >>You as an individual are free to afford whatever you want. That is not actually true. I'm spent the afternoon searching for health insurance for my wife, who is pregnant, and trying to immigrate to the U.S. Thanks to the 2,000 pages of ACA regulation, there is no clause or loophole that allows us to purchase insurance for her. Your argument using 'data' is not sympathetic nor persuasive to me.

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 11y ago
> Thanks to the 2,000 pages of ACA regulation, there is no clause or loophole that allows us to purchase insurance for her. Are you saying that the ACA is the reason your wife can't purchase health insurance?
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  Yes, because before the ACA, there were at least options available, albeit expensive. Her situation is complicated, but now there is pretty much nothing available that she qualifies for. Or worse, if there is, I am unable to locate and communicate with those people who can help me, and the people in charge of helping me are not properly trained (another example of the situation above). I've talked to our State's Office for Insurance, and they're trying to help, but are also frustrated (and very sympathetic) with the situation.
makecheck 11y ago
Bernie's real expectation is that things will get better if people get off their butts and take action. I doubt he believes that government programs will be magically efficient and effective without the right people to make them that way. Government jobs are available. You can't really complain about something being "managed so poorly" unless you're one of the people in that organization trying to make it better. Currently the U.S. has a system where doctors' offices need SEVERAL full time staff just to deal with insurance companies, which is insane and nothing like what I have seen elsewhere.