4 ms·

public option generally does not equivocate to universal coverage. If he advocated against public option for Single Payer, then you could call it universal/prog

public option generally does not equivocate to universal coverage. If he advocated against public option for Single Payer, then you could call it universal/progressive. Public option doesn't address runaway drug spending. 1 bulk purchaser of drugs could set the price basically that we're willing to pay, the federal government could also strip patents of companies found price-fixing or price-gouging. I mean he's rich, so he def. could be progressive in that maybe he doesn't need the money the pharmacy/insurance companies would give him to not be progressive, but I'd have to see it before I believe it. I mean there are progressive billionaires - Nick hanover has given tons of Ted talks on income inequality. There's definitely other options this cycle though if you're skeptical and want a real progressive, so why take the chance?

natechols 7y ago
Single payer may guarantee universal coverage, but it is not the only route to achieving it - there are multiple counter-examples among advanced nations. If your goal is to improve health care and reduce costs, you should consider all options, not just the ones that flatter your ideological biases. That doesn't mean accepting clearly bad-faith arguments like "let's abolish malpractice lawsuits" at face value, but it does mean you have to explain why (for example) Germany's multi-payer health insurance system would be unacceptable for Americans. (Germany is significantly more socialized than the ACA, but significantly less socialized than Warren's current M4A plan. EDIT: or maybe not, as comment below suggests, but it definitely includes private health insurers, which Warren has said she would abolish.)
- spamizbad 7y ago
  Germany's multi-payer system has significantly stricter consumer cost controls and Germany in general has more government-run health providers (eg: your out-of-pocket costs are effectively capped at a low % of your household's income). It's a good bit more socialized than Warren's and might, taken as a whole, be more socialized than even Sander's M4A plan. Perhaps a German HNer can chime in on how frequent medical bankruptcies are in their country.
jimmyvalmer 7y ago
You used "equivocate" incorrectly. Also, as Kevin Hart says in the 40yo virgin, you're throwing too many terms at me (public option, universal, single payer, progressive) and I'm gonna take it as disrespect.

natechols 7y ago

Single payer may guarantee universal coverage, but it is not the only route to achieving it - there are multiple counter-examples among advanced nations. If your goal is to improve health care and reduce costs, you should consider all options, not just the ones that flatter your ideological biases. That doesn't mean accepting clearly bad-faith arguments like "let's abolish malpractice lawsuits" at face value, but it does mean you have to explain why (for example) Germany's multi-payer health insurance system would be unacceptable for Americans. (Germany is significantly more socialized than the ACA, but significantly less socialized than Warren's current M4A plan. EDIT: or maybe not, as comment below suggests, but it definitely includes private health insurers, which Warren has said she would abolish.)

spamizbad 7y ago
Germany's multi-payer system has significantly stricter consumer cost controls and Germany in general has more government-run health providers (eg: your out-of-pocket costs are effectively capped at a low % of your household's income). It's a good bit more socialized than Warren's and might, taken as a whole, be more socialized than even Sander's M4A plan. Perhaps a German HNer can chime in on how frequent medical bankruptcies are in their country.

jimmyvalmer 7y ago

You used "equivocate" incorrectly. Also, as Kevin Hart says in the 40yo virgin, you're throwing too many terms at me (public option, universal, single payer, progressive) and I'm gonna take it as disrespect.