5 ms·

> This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. As someone who voluteer

> This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options. As someone who voluteered in this field during that time, this is just a repetition of right wing propaganda. There was no serious movement to eliminate private options. Every country with a single-payer system that I'm aware of has private options as well, they just aren't popular because they aren't good or necessary. Right wing extremists want to present this as eliminating options, but in reality, it's just people not choosing private options when they have other options, because private options suck. The real reason the left rejected a the "compromise" of non-profit options is that it still requires people who don't have money to pay for insurance. Simply slapping a non-profit label on an insurance company doesn't fix anything. Note that non-profit health insurance companies exist already, and have solved exactly zero of America's health insurance problems.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  > Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. Correct, but that's a pretty big change from the propaganda you repeated in your previous comment. What you said was, "This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options." In another now-deleted comment, you also said, "the left was too fixated On preventing people from buying better care". Nothing about having single payer healthcare prevents people from also purchasing private healthcare. Single payer does not require the elimination of private options--when you said that was what the left wanted, you were repeating a lie. People can and do purchase private healthcare in countries with single-payer systems--it's just not common because generally the private healthcare options aren't worth it. > If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away. Single-payer is optional in the same sense that current subsidies to insurance companies are optional, it just costs less and results in less death and human suffering. Your insistence that it has to be "offered at cost" is basically an insistence that people who can't afford that cost but need life saving care can just die. So no, it wasn't "offered at cost"--that's the entire point. I want Americans to be able to receive life-saving medical care when they need it, even if they are poor. That's just basic empathy for our fellow humans.
  - Clubber 2y ago
    In all fairness, Bernie Sanders did want to eliminate private insurance under his medicare for all proposal. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-ins... Warren and DeBlasio also signaled they would abolish private insurance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      That's just the unclear messaging that the right wing is taking advantage of. I don't have a NYT subscription so I can't see the whole article, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing in that article that mentions actually preventing companies from offering private health insurance--it's just assumed (correctly) that these companies will be operating at a miniscule fraction of their current scale when people can obtain health insurance from a single payer, because few people will pay for private health insurance when there are better, cheaper options. As I've reiterated repeatedly, this isn't a loss of options. Health insurance companies can still operate and consumers can still pay for private health insurance, they'll simply be competing with a cheaper alternative that doesn't have a perverse incentive to deny care. I suppose you could make the argument that there will be fewer options because some of these insurance companies will go bankrupt, but that's just capitalism--there's nothing about the current system which guarantees health insurance companies will remain solvent or guarantees a variety of insurance options. In practice there are many places in the U.S. where there's effectively only one health insurance option.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        you are wrong again! please read the article >There are few international analogues to the Medicare for all proposals, but Canada, which provides similar doctor and hospital benefits for its residents, probably comes closest. Even there, people buy private insurance for benefits that are not covered by the government program, like prescription drugs and dental care. Most other countries with single-payer systems allow a more expansive, competing role for private coverage. In Britain, for example, everyone is covered by a public system, but people can pay extra for insurance that gives them access to private doctors. https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254 https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away.

kerkeslager 2y ago
> Single payer literally meant that all citizens are subscribed to the same government operated health insurance. Correct, but that's a pretty big change from the propaganda you repeated in your previous comment. What you said was, "This was discussed briefly during the Obama healthcare debates, but broadly rejected by left who wanted to eliminate private options." In another now-deleted comment, you also said, "the left was too fixated On preventing people from buying better care". Nothing about having single payer healthcare prevents people from also purchasing private healthcare. Single payer does not require the elimination of private options--when you said that was what the left wanted, you were repeating a lie. People can and do purchase private healthcare in countries with single-payer systems--it's just not common because generally the private healthcare options aren't worth it. > If the entire "single payer" program was completely optional and offered at cost, they totally missed the messaging on that one, because I was paying attention and that wasnt my take away. Single-payer is optional in the same sense that current subsidies to insurance companies are optional, it just costs less and results in less death and human suffering. Your insistence that it has to be "offered at cost" is basically an insistence that people who can't afford that cost but need life saving care can just die. So no, it wasn't "offered at cost"--that's the entire point. I want Americans to be able to receive life-saving medical care when they need it, even if they are poor. That's just basic empathy for our fellow humans.
- Clubber 2y ago
  In all fairness, Bernie Sanders did want to eliminate private insurance under his medicare for all proposal. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-insurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/health/private-health-ins... Warren and DeBlasio also signaled they would abolish private insurance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaTecufx8Sk
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    That's just the unclear messaging that the right wing is taking advantage of. I don't have a NYT subscription so I can't see the whole article, but as far as I can tell, there's nothing in that article that mentions actually preventing companies from offering private health insurance--it's just assumed (correctly) that these companies will be operating at a miniscule fraction of their current scale when people can obtain health insurance from a single payer, because few people will pay for private health insurance when there are better, cheaper options. As I've reiterated repeatedly, this isn't a loss of options. Health insurance companies can still operate and consumers can still pay for private health insurance, they'll simply be competing with a cheaper alternative that doesn't have a perverse incentive to deny care. I suppose you could make the argument that there will be fewer options because some of these insurance companies will go bankrupt, but that's just capitalism--there's nothing about the current system which guarantees health insurance companies will remain solvent or guarantees a variety of insurance options. In practice there are many places in the U.S. where there's effectively only one health insurance option.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      you are wrong again! please read the article >There are few international analogues to the Medicare for all proposals, but Canada, which provides similar doctor and hospital benefits for its residents, probably comes closest. Even there, people buy private insurance for benefits that are not covered by the government program, like prescription drugs and dental care. Most other countries with single-payer systems allow a more expansive, competing role for private coverage. In Britain, for example, everyone is covered by a public system, but people can pay extra for insurance that gives them access to private doctors. https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254 https://archive.is/UqCOC#selection-857.0-945.254