Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I think people would be more likely to go to a Doctor under universal healthcare, especially for preventative care because it doesn't cost them anything extra to do that. Under a capitalist (or your) approach, people would be less likely to go because they'd rather keep or save that money (or not have to pay back to the cap once they fall under).



Hope that's not the case, they should at least be going once a year for an annual physical.

But how much are we talking they have to pay into this fund? I'm just doing some math, and if they paid $150 from each paycheck into the fund (which seems a lot for lower income people but IDK), that would only be $3,600 paid into the account in a year. So it would take them about 13 years to get to the cap of $50,000 (though you admit $50,000 was just an arbitrary number). Even at $20,000, it would take someone 5-6 years to get to $20,000.

I think the fundamental problem with your system is that poor people will forever be paying to get to the account max and therefore will always be paying money. I find it very hard to believe a poor person can pay $150 per paycheck for 6 years to get to $20,000 and cap out to where they don't have to pay, especially when you start having health problems.

What are your thoughts on the fact poor people may be having to pay into your system for their entire lives?



It's definitely a unique system, I think it's better than our current one, though it still suffers from the same problem as all our systems do IMO, that we don't want to fully commit to Universal healthcare so we come up with some hybrid system that's not as effective.

As for your repeated claim that everything shows Universal Healthcare will be more expensive, a study funded by the Koch brothers found that it would actually be $2 trillion less over 10 years than our current system (though that was based on assumed costs under Bernie Sanders' plan that the author of the study called unrealistic).

But even beyond that, it seems weird to me that everyone still wants to perpetuate this idea that universal healthcare will be vastly more expensive than our current system when virtually every other industrialized nation that as Universal healthcare pays drastically less than us for it. Are we really so bad compared to our counterparts in other countries we can't figure out what they've all figured out over 50 years ago?

---

I think a big part of the expected expense of single payer for us is that to bring the expense down will require vast changes to the way health care is run, and the companies involved will fight tooth and nail to keep their BS going. It's what happened to Obamacare and Obamacare because of that corruption made healthcare far more expensive rather than less. The idea behind keep capitalism in is that it's a non-regulatory method to regulate costs. People are willing to spend an infinite amount of other people's money, but less so their own.

I managed my father's care under medicare when he got (and died from) cancer. It's a completely broken and unsustainable system. It makes me cringe when candidates say "medicare for all" ... what a nightmare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I think a big part of the expected expense of single payer for us is that to bring the expense down will require vast changes to the way health care is run, and the companies involved will fight tooth and nail to keep their BS going. It's what happened to Obamacare and Obamacare because of that corruption made healthcare far more expensive rather than less. The idea behind keep capitalism in is that it's a non-regulatory method to regulate costs. People are willing to spend an infinite amount of other people's money, but less so their own.

---

I don't think it is. The whole reason we got Obamacare was that the Capitalist approach was skyrocketing costs. People may be willing to spend an infinite amount of other people's money, but they will also spend an infinite amount of money to keep themselves alive. Drug companies know this, hence why they charge an infinite amount of money for their life saving products.

I guess my biggest question is, if capitalism is the best way to tackle our healthcare, how come it already failed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I don't think it is. The whole reason we got Obamacare was that the Capitalist approach was skyrocketing costs. People may be willing to spend an infinite amount of other people's money, but they will also spend an infinite amount of money to keep themselves alive. Drug companies know this, hence why they charge an infinite amount of money for their life saving products.

I guess my biggest question is, if capitalism is the best way to tackle our healthcare, how come it already failed?

---

The capitalist system price increases were being driven by the health care industry (legalized gambling), and by the massive influence of medicare. Also by the de-regulation of the drug industry and the disaster that is our patent system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

The capitalist system price increases were being driven by the health care industry (legalized gambling), and by the massive influence of medicare. Also by the de-regulation of the drug industry and the disaster that is our patent system.

---

Well it seems like with your system every single one of those factors would still be relevant. I take it your system would include changes to the healthcare industry, drug industry and patent laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

If a doctor says it's $25k for a doctor visit then the consumer says no thanks and finds a doctor who will charge $150. With yelp doctors ratings will all be public so they have to perform.

---

I was clearly exaggerating, but the point is that everyone will find the best(highest priced) doctor that they can. When their funds run out the government will be left holding that inflated bill or anytime you have a major illness you will have to switch doctors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by benny01

I was clearly exaggerating, but the point is that everyone will find the best(highest priced) doctor that they can. When their funds run out the government will be left holding that inflated bill or anytime you have a major illness you will have to switch doctors.

---

But doctors who publish high fees won't get as much business, and there would be no reason to change doctors other than your own choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

Well it seems like with your system every single one of those factors would still be relevant. I take it your system would include changes to the healthcare industry, drug industry and patent laws?

---

I think we need to:

- change the patent laws in general they are too long.
- stop allowing drugs to be advertised.
- stop allowing drug companies to chase/push/bribe doctors.

- health insurance as an industry would end. The government is your insurer, and your deductible is everything you've put in the savings account.

Regardless of the system used there will have to be added some realistic cost audits added on our health care system. There is no consistency and often no connection between cost and price. Also there will have to be some trials based process to eliminate un-needed procedures when it comes to the government's dime, but those limits should be fairly high.

Everybody I've talked to about it from Canada, Australia, and the UK (about 20 people) say they occasionally use private health care that they pay for out of pocket. Either for an option denied by the government, or to get something in a more timely manner. One friend in Toronto wanted to get a broad STD test done because he was a bit of a dog and met a girl he felt he could be serious about ... the government appointment was 8 months in the future ... he drove over the border to the US and got one for $80 the next day.

There is no solution that takes the government out of the system, but we want to get the price down, the quality up, AND reward people who come up with new health care solutions. This was the best I've seen on those things.

Of course, getting it to happen is essentially as impossible as the original Obamacare getting passed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

I think we need to:

- change the patent laws in general they are too long.
- stop allowing drugs to be advertised.
- stop allowing drug companies to chase/push/bribe doctors.

- health insurance as an industry would end. The government is your insurer, and your deductible is everything you've put in the savings account.

Regardless of the system used there will have to be added some realistic cost audits added on our health care system. There is no consistency and often no connection between cost and price. Also there will have to be some trials based process to eliminate un-needed procedures when it comes to the government's dime, but those limits should be fairly high.

Everybody I've talked to about it from Canada, Australia, and the UK (about 20 people) say they occasionally use private health care that they pay for out of pocket. Either for an option denied by the government, or to get something in a more timely manner. One friend in Toronto wanted to get a broad STD test done because he was a bit of a dog and met a girl he felt he could be serious about ... the government appointment was 8 months in the future ... he drove over the border to the US and got one for $80 the next day.

There is no solution that takes the government out of the system, but we want to get the price down, the quality up, AND reward people who come up with new health care solutions. This was the best I've seen on those things.

Of course, getting it to happen is essentially as impossible as the original Obamacare getting passed.

---

- Yes
- No
- Hell yes
- **** no. Not even a consideration. Again, absolutely **** no. Did I say absolutely **** no? I did. So again.... absolutely ****ing **** no!

I'll respond to the balance tomorrow when I'm not lying in bed with my head bobbing up and down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

- Yes
- No
- Hell yes
- **** no. Not even a consideration. Again, absolutely **** no. Did I say absolutely **** no? I did. So again.... absolutely ****ing **** no!

I'll respond to the balance tomorrow when I'm not lying in bed with my head bobbing up and down.

---

Who the hell is actually in favor of prescription drugs being advertised?!?

I’d rather they spend their money on R&D and not trying to rope in people onto drugs that don’t need them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I don't think it is. The whole reason we got Obamacare was that the Capitalist approach was skyrocketing costs. People may be willing to spend an infinite amount of other people's money, but they will also spend an infinite amount of money to keep themselves alive. Drug companies know this, hence why they charge an infinite amount of money for their life saving products.

I guess my biggest question is, if capitalism is the best way to tackle our healthcare, how come it already failed?

---

This is operating under the false assumption that what we had before obamacare's failure was a capitalist system and a failure of capitalism.

Healthcare in the US was and is arguably the most regulated and interfered with industry in the history of the world.

Hospitals and drug manufacturers charged very high amounts due to government granted monopolies, extreme regulation that increased costs of delivery and bringing drugs to market, bans on imports, and the fact that prices were obfuscated and NOT tied to customers. The government or an insurance company was expected to pick up the tab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

- Yes
- No
- Hell yes
- **** no. Not even a consideration. Again, absolutely **** no. Did I say absolutely **** no? I did. So again.... absolutely ****ing **** no!

I'll respond to the balance tomorrow when I'm not lying in bed with my head bobbing up and down.

---

I agree with him about the way drugs are advertised. I honestly don't think they should be advertised so heavily on television.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo

- Yes
- No
- Hell yes
- **** no. Not even a consideration. Again, absolutely **** no. Did I say absolutely **** no? I did. So again.... absolutely ****ing **** no!

I'll respond to the balance tomorrow when I'm not lying in bed with my head bobbing up and down.

---

Please read the whole discussion before you reply in full.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scoots

Please read the whole discussion before you reply in full.

---

I did. What's your point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I agree with him about the way drugs are advertised. I honestly don't think they should be advertised so heavily on television.

---

I'm totally ok with it. I can't remember a single time that I saw an opioid based medication advertised on TV. Actually, I'm pretty certain I haven't.

Every commercial about prescriptions are for drugs that treat a disease, which allows the consumer with a disease to ask their doctor questions about medication options.

It's not like someone can watch a commercial and obtain that medication without being first consulted by a medical professional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeW-Star

Who the hell is actually in favor of prescription drugs being advertised?!?

I’d rather they spend their money on R&D and not trying to rope in people onto drugs that don’t need them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That's a pretty ignorant statement. People with diseases need to know their options. And how does a commercial rope someone into drugs they don't need? Pretty sure it's the doctor's job to prescribe a medication.