Elections ***Second Democratic Primary Debate play-by-play thread: Night 1. ***

[Rational Poster]

How many deaths is that comfort worth to you? The Medicare For All people claim--plausibly---that the alternative Democratic proposals would result in 10,000s of deaths due to lack of coverage and underinsurance.

I don't support the current system, so none of them is worth that comfort.

I disagree with the idea that medicare for all is some sort quick fix solution, that's all.

Clearly we need to transition toward a new system. Medicare for all might be a good end point for this transition, but it's certainly not step one. It's probably not even step 12 or 20.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't support the current system, so none of them is worth that comfort.

I disagree with the idea that medicare for all is some sort quick fix solution, that's all.

Clearly we need to transition toward a new system. Medicare for all might be a good end point for this transition, but it's certainly not step one. It's probably not even step 12 or 20.

What specifically do you oppose about the Sanders bill? It proposes a four-year transition to universal health insurance, which is faster than any of the other Democratic plans, many of which offer no plan for universal health insurance. It is therefore plausible to claim that the other Democratic proposals would result in 10,000s of unnecessary deaths.

 

[Rational Poster]

What specifically do you oppose about the Sanders bill? It proposes a four-year transition to universal health insurance, which is faster than any of the other Democratic plans, many of which offer no plan for universal health insurance. It is therefore plausible to claim that the other Democratic proposals would result in 10,000s of unnecessary deaths.

The time frame and lack of actual plan for all the people currently working in the private medical industry.

 

[waiguoren]

The time frame and lack of actual plan for all the people currently working in the private medical industry.

So again, how many deaths are acceptable to you so that those insurance company employees can keep their jobs?

 

[Rational Poster]

So again, how many deaths are acceptable to you so that those insurance company employees can keep their jobs?

I already told you that none of them are ok. Death is never ok.

But if transitioning to a poorly planned government provider system starts a complete global economic collapse we'll be dealing with millions of deaths and still not have any health insurance.

 

[waiguoren]

if transitioning to a poorly planned government provider system starts a complete global economic collapse

A 'complete global economic collapse'? What do you estimate the probability of this outcome to be (assuming M4A passes)? I'll go with roughly 0%.

 

[Rational Poster]

A 'complete global economic collapse'? What do you estimate the probability of this outcome to be (assuming M4A passes)? I'll go with roughly 0%.

What do you think would happen if you kick the legs out of 1/5th of the United States economy then?

 

[waiguoren]

What do you think would happen if you kick the legs out of 1/5th of the United States economy then?

I think that's a false premise. I think you'd have an approximately commensurate increase in government hiring with Medicare For All.

 

[superpunch]

A 'complete global economic collapse'? What do you estimate the probability of this outcome to be (assuming M4A passes)? I'll go with roughly 0%.

The Great Depression shaved off 15% of the global GDP. The 2008 crisis was ~1%. For perspective, government run healthcare will shave off ~10% of our GDP before those resources are reinvested into other industries and those people who lost jobs find new jobs/ skills. In the meantime, those people aren't paying their mortgages, student loan debt, car payments, etc. So, if the 2008 subprime crisis of 1% of global GDP caused the scare that it did around the world -- imagine what 10% of the GDP going bust would look like. That could easily start a global crisis.

 

[superpunch]

I think that's a false premise. I think you'd have an approximately commensurate increase in government hiring with Medicare For All.

I think you're actually right. Which brings the up the obvious point: medicare sucks and is bloated and inefficient. We could accomplish coverage for the entire population much more efficiently on proven systems like Japan or Canada's models. Medicare for all would be the most expensive universal healthcare in the world by a long shot and it still wouldn't even be the best. So, why is the platform medicare for all instead of Japan's system for all or Canada's system for all?

It's because it's not a serious policy proposal. It's politics for people that support it because it's only three words big and thinking harder makes their heads hurt. It's the left's version of universal healthcare policy that mirrors the right's proposing a giant stupid wall to solve illegal immigration.

 

[waiguoren]

government run healthcare will shave off ~10% of our GDP before those resources are reinvested into other industries and those people who lost jobs find new jobs/ skills

How did you calculate this figure?

 

[waiguoren]

@superpunch

What are the essential features of the Japanese and Canadian systems that you think we could replicate in the US?

 

[Rational Poster]

I think that's a false premise. I think you'd have an approximately commensurate increase in government hiring with Medicare For All.

This is an incredibly false premise.

It sounds silly to me that you'd even expect a 1:1 transfer from the private to government sector and that it could be done smoothly within 4 years.

 

[superpunch]

How did you calculate this figure?

Healthcare makes up ~18% of the US GDP and is ~8% in most countries with universal healthcare coverage. We actually already spend more tax dollars on healthcare per person than every country in the world with a universal healthcare system except for Norway on just medicare for some. That's how stupid medicare for all is.

And as stupid as it is, it's still less stupid than the system we have now. But it's still really, really stupid; it would be the worst and most expensive public healthcare system in the world.

It's not a policy proposal for serious people. It's a policy proposal for people that can't think very hard and get lost at anything with a description longer than 3 words. "BUILD A WALL!" "MEDICARE FOR ALL!"

 

[superpunch]

@superpunch

What are the essential features of the Japanese and Canadian systems that you think we could replicate in the US?

Canada only has 3/4 of our GDP per capita and has similar costs of living. There's no major reason we can't just copy Canada's entire system.

 

[Rational Poster]

Healthcare makes up ~18% of the US GDP and is ~8% in most countries with universal healthcare coverage. We actually already spend more tax dollars on healthcare per person than every country in the world with a universal healthcare system on just medicare for some. That's how stupid medicare for all is.

And as stupid as it is, it's still less stupid than the system we have now. But it's still really, really stupid; it would be the worst and most expensive public healthcare system in the world.

It's not a policy proposal for serious people. It's a policy proposal for people that can't think very hard and get lost at anything with a description longer than 3 words. "BUILD A WALL!" "MEDICARE FOR ALL!"

I think your estimates are closer to reality than @waiguoren but still extremely conservative.

So much money is tied to the healthcare industry.. not just the workers themselves, but investors from around the world, who take that money and spend it in other industries. Pensions would be wiped out all over the world. It would be a major problem if not handled correctly.

 

[superpunch]

nm

 

[waiguoren]

This is an incredibly false premise.

It sounds silly to me that you'd even expect a 1:1 transfer from the private to government sector and that it could be done smoothly within 4 years.

I don't know. On the one hand, private industry is better at keeping costs down in terms of optimizing processes (ultimately, this is because there is a profit motive) and therefore would require less labor. On the other hand, individual private pools are inherently less efficient compared to a single pool, so the government-run plan might require less labor.

Healthcare makes up ~18% of the US GDP and is ~8% in most countries with universal healthcare coverage.

You don't see that it's a non-sequitur to assume a 10% decline in US GDP based on those figures? Nations are not the same as each other. For example, US citizens have much higher rates of obesity than the average for those nations, and that's going to result in higher health care costs regardless of the health care system in place.

Canada only has 3/4 of our GDP per capita and has similar costs of living. There's no major reason we can't just copy Canada's entire system.

I was asking you for the essential features of the Canadian system that you think we should copy, and how those features differ from the essential features of Medicare For All.

 

[Prokofievian]

So far as I know, medicare for all would essentially be copying Canada's system, depending on what it covers. Key things are not covered in Canada's basic plans: prescription drugs, eye care, that sort of thing. Providers are all still private, though. They just bill the government for the services they provide.

Japan is a different ball game. I don't know much about it. But I heard that all their hospitals are physician owned non-profit co-ops or some shit like that? Seems like more of a re-write than just M4A.

 

[method115]

I understand the healthcare industry would be shaken up and lots of people losing their job but were talking about people dying here. Not just adults but sometimes kids as well. Is there really an argument at that point? Sure lets try to slowly do it and help these people get jobs. Maybe even see about having them qualify for some sort of relief payment package to support them for 6 months or so if they are having trouble finding work. At the end of the day though this is people losing jobs vs people dying.

 

[jeffk]

I don't think medicare for those who want it seems like such a better way to go than medicare for all.

I know I nor my girlfriend would want to give up our current insurance ppo plan. There has to be tons of others who won't want to give up their private insurance either.

If people want to buy into a Medicare plan, good for them. More competition for private insurance. If private insurance cannot compete, I'd go with medicare plan over time.

And then putting undocumented on medicare plan....if a candidate is for that in the general election guaranteed Trump wins.