3 ms·

Something fishy about this story, but let's presume it is 100% true. Medicare for all would be much bigger than Obamacare; in fact, the physical infrastructure

Something fishy about this story, but let's presume it is 100% true. Medicare for all would be much bigger than Obamacare; in fact, the physical infrastructure and the workforce infrastructure is not in place to service the entire population. Most people on Medicare today have to wait months for doctors and surgeries. VA hospitals have trouble servicing veterans in a timely and professional manner. To have Medicare for all would require a Doctor and Nurses Corps, thousands of hospitals would have to be erected and staffed. It's not going to happen, especially with a hostile Senate and no mandate from the public at large. A public option remains overall more popular than Medicare for All, according to a Kaiser Hospital poll.

digitaltrees 7y ago
Why would the need to be a doctor or nurse Corps? Providers would remain private, only the insurance would be paid by Medicare. Further the government could subcontract with existing insurance companies for administrative services reducing job losses and ensuring competitive market dynamics for part of the health system.
chrisseaton 7y ago
Why couldn’t all the existing doctors, nurses, and hospitals be used? There won’t suddenly be double the population.
- SCAQTony 7y ago
  Population growth would not surge, but demand for healthcare would. If the Veterans Administration hospitals and local community hospitals cannot adequately service the health needs of their respective communities quickly, that indicates to me more infrastructure and medical personnel have to be created. Doing this would be is a good thing. This infrastructure should be rolled out with deliberate thought rather than by the stroke of a pen. Some people want to keep their employer insurance due to quality and service. They don't want to see their employer cancel it to save money once Medicare for all is in play. When healthcare in Great Britain or Sweeden is mention as a solution, it looks and sounds good on paper, but the US has over 327-million people versus Great Britain's 67-million and Sweden's 11-million population. From Wikipedia" "...The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded, universal for all citizens and decentralized, although private health care also exists. A shortage of medical personnel is a major problem. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities." I can't imagine what the shortages of doctors and nurses in the US would be. YMMV.
mcv 7y ago
Maybe it would help if the US took a look at how other countries handle this. For the money that the US pays (per capita) for Medicare, the UK manage to cover everybody, yet the US only covers elderly people. Americans are already paying for socialised health care, they're just not receiving it, and are expected to pay extra, and a lot extra, to get their own coverage. There's an immense amount of inefficiency that can be cut from the system. This won't be easy of course, but it's absolutely possible. Every single other wealthy country manages it. Every time Americans claim it cannot be done in their country, I'm surprised at that "cannot do spirit". The US used to have a very different attitude about such challenges in the past. What happened?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> To have Medicare for all would require a Doctor and Nurses Corps, thousands of hospitals would have to be erected and staffed. No, neither of those would be required. Existing hospitals, clinics, medical groups, and individual providers would just continue to operate, but reduce admin costs and staff because they'd only have to deal with far fewer payers (not just one, because the actual concrete Medicare for All plans aren't quite single payer and generally continue to keep at least Medicaid as a separate program.) > It's not going to happen, especially with a hostile Senate Who says there is going to be a hostile Senate after the 2020 election? Or, if there still is, after the 2022 midterm? > A public option remains overall more popular than Medicare for All, according to a Kaiser Hospital poll. You are almost certainly referring to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is unconnected (except in history long past) with Kaiser Permanente, the insurer/provider/hospital organization. And note that both of those options have majority support (because support overlaps). https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-february-2020/ https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tr...

digitaltrees 7y ago

Why would the need to be a doctor or nurse Corps? Providers would remain private, only the insurance would be paid by Medicare. Further the government could subcontract with existing insurance companies for administrative services reducing job losses and ensuring competitive market dynamics for part of the health system.

chrisseaton 7y ago

Why couldn’t all the existing doctors, nurses, and hospitals be used? There won’t suddenly be double the population.

SCAQTony 7y ago
Population growth would not surge, but demand for healthcare would. If the Veterans Administration hospitals and local community hospitals cannot adequately service the health needs of their respective communities quickly, that indicates to me more infrastructure and medical personnel have to be created. Doing this would be is a good thing. This infrastructure should be rolled out with deliberate thought rather than by the stroke of a pen. Some people want to keep their employer insurance due to quality and service. They don't want to see their employer cancel it to save money once Medicare for all is in play. When healthcare in Great Britain or Sweeden is mention as a solution, it looks and sounds good on paper, but the US has over 327-million people versus Great Britain's 67-million and Sweden's 11-million population. From Wikipedia" "...The Swedish health care system is mainly government-funded, universal for all citizens and decentralized, although private health care also exists. A shortage of medical personnel is a major problem. The health care system in Sweden is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities." I can't imagine what the shortages of doctors and nurses in the US would be. YMMV.

mcv 7y ago

Maybe it would help if the US took a look at how other countries handle this. For the money that the US pays (per capita) for Medicare, the UK manage to cover everybody, yet the US only covers elderly people. Americans are already paying for socialised health care, they're just not receiving it, and are expected to pay extra, and a lot extra, to get their own coverage. There's an immense amount of inefficiency that can be cut from the system. This won't be easy of course, but it's absolutely possible. Every single other wealthy country manages it. Every time Americans claim it cannot be done in their country, I'm surprised at that "cannot do spirit". The US used to have a very different attitude about such challenges in the past. What happened?

dragonwriter 7y ago

> To have Medicare for all would require a Doctor and Nurses Corps, thousands of hospitals would have to be erected and staffed. No, neither of those would be required. Existing hospitals, clinics, medical groups, and individual providers would just continue to operate, but reduce admin costs and staff because they'd only have to deal with far fewer payers (not just one, because the actual concrete Medicare for All plans aren't quite single payer and generally continue to keep at least Medicaid as a separate program.) > It's not going to happen, especially with a hostile Senate Who says there is going to be a hostile Senate after the 2020 election? Or, if there still is, after the 2022 midterm? > A public option remains overall more popular than Medicare for All, according to a Kaiser Hospital poll. You are almost certainly referring to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is unconnected (except in history long past) with Kaiser Permanente, the insurer/provider/hospital organization. And note that both of those options have majority support (because support overlaps). https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-february-2020/ https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tr...