5 ms·

Univers healthcare almost always bans duplicate coverage. Without private insurance, a tiny fraction of people (<1%) can afford to bypass the public healthcare

Univers healthcare almost always bans duplicate coverage. Without private insurance, a tiny fraction of people (<1%) can afford to bypass the public healthcare system. Therefore, it is not financially viable for all but a small number of doctors not to integrate into the public healthcare system. The scenario you're described had the opportunity to be borne out in dozens of countries and generally didn't.

ceeplusplus 4y ago
Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would absolutely be challenged and likely struck down in court in the US.
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance. The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
  - masonic 4y ago
    >manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
    - lesuorac 4y ago
      > The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA. How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority? https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/ https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
      - masonic 4y ago
        >How much more than the ACA They could have done universal healthcare instead of ACA and with much simpler legislation and less regulatory authoring burden.
    - tstrimple 4y ago
      Thanks a lot Joe. > Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation. > Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-...
buescher 4y ago
No. Most proposals for universal healthcare by the American left would ban private insurance. Most actual universal healthcare does not ban private insurance. >Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.” https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-pa...
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  You're making the exact mistake I was anticipating when I talked about duplicate insurance. Sure, you can get private insurance, but it cannot legally cover anything that is covered by public insurance. This is the standard worldwide. You're conflating private insurance and duplicate private insurance, and ending up on a very mistaken conclusion because of it.
  - buescher 4y ago
    Nope. There is no such "standard worldwide". Read the article I posted. In most countries private insurance either replaces public insurance (in countries whose system uses an individual mandate like the original ACA) or as the article puts it, "complements it", for "faster access to specialty doctors or elective procedures."
    - sudosysgen 4y ago
      In the vast majority of countries it "complements" or "supplements" it. There are very few countries where private healthcare is allowed to replace public care. Israel, Slovenia, the Netherlands and few developing countries are the only cases. There are other countries with a system between complementary and duplicate where private insurance may also pay for duplicate care, but you still aren't allowed to not subscribe to the public healthcare plan. Duplicate healthcare insurance is deeply toxic and

ceeplusplus 4y ago

Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would absolutely be challenged and likely struck down in court in the US.

sudosysgen 4y ago
Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance. The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
- masonic 4y ago
  >manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA. How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority? https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/ https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
    - masonic 4y ago
      >How much more than the ACA They could have done universal healthcare instead of ACA and with much simpler legislation and less regulatory authoring burden.
  - tstrimple 4y ago
    Thanks a lot Joe. > Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation. > Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-...

buescher 4y ago

No. Most proposals for universal healthcare by the American left would ban private insurance. Most actual universal healthcare does not ban private insurance. >Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.” https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders https://www.vox.com/health-care/2019/2/12/18215430/single-pa...

sudosysgen 4y ago
You're making the exact mistake I was anticipating when I talked about duplicate insurance. Sure, you can get private insurance, but it cannot legally cover anything that is covered by public insurance. This is the standard worldwide. You're conflating private insurance and duplicate private insurance, and ending up on a very mistaken conclusion because of it.
- buescher 4y ago
  Nope. There is no such "standard worldwide". Read the article I posted. In most countries private insurance either replaces public insurance (in countries whose system uses an individual mandate like the original ACA) or as the article puts it, "complements it", for "faster access to specialty doctors or elective procedures."
  - sudosysgen 4y ago
    In the vast majority of countries it "complements" or "supplements" it. There are very few countries where private healthcare is allowed to replace public care. Israel, Slovenia, the Netherlands and few developing countries are the only cases. There are other countries with a system between complementary and duplicate where private insurance may also pay for duplicate care, but you still aren't allowed to not subscribe to the public healthcare plan. Duplicate healthcare insurance is deeply toxic and