....when is Sanders going to tell us exactly what it will cost? He keeps saying it will be "cheaper", but has released little or no details of how it will be funded and what the "savings" are going to be.

It works spread out over a large diverse population. It is why every nation on this planet has health care for all, whatever they call it or however they adapt it to their own country.

Isn't this obvious?

....their tax rates are higher overall than here.

Plus the size of all those countries are a fraction of the United States.

they currently have, to move to a system that is not costed and not fleshed out. And people who can afford private healthcare are probably the same people who vote.

It will create a lifeline for Trump and Republicans to create massive fear in the lead up to November, despite them being the evil one.

There isn't healthcare for all in every other country, just varying degrees of it, depending on what they can afford. Living in a country that has a public health service, there are many issues with waiting lists for surgery, the annual trolley crisis where the sick spend days on hospital trolleys because there aren't enough beds available in the wards, often because there aren't enough step down facilities available to take in the recuperating elderly. We have a private healthcare too, and if we didn't, there'd be chaos. The one thing that was brought in a decade ago was "community rating" which means private healthcare companies can't cherry pick the young, to the exclusion of the elderly.

But of course, for some "odd" reason all those Swedes and Danes and French and even Brits do not, when asked, want "American style" health care. Do you ever wonder why they don't?

that wants to take away pre-existing conditions. The same public that backed the GOP to "get rid of Obamacare", many of whom didn't realise Obamacare was their loved ACA.

And you add to all that, Democratic voters who actually like their private healthcare policies, who are told you'll have to give up your favourite healthcare policy, to get this super dooper free public healthcare system.

If you can show overwhelming support for an M4A which ends private healthcare, where there is a Democratic President, a Dem House and a Dem Senate where they have over 60 seats, then you might start the conversation, but you better be ready for massive backlash from the private healthcare industry who will explain to their patients that they will now go in a public waiting list, for the healthcare they need today.

With the best will in the world, M4A would be great, but getting to there from here is way too much to get done. The boys at Pod Save America had a fantastic suggestion.

1. Fix the ACA (there's a bipartisan bill there to do it, but McConnell is blocking it currently)
2. Let the private healthcare stay in place, then it's easy to say to people "if you want to stay with your private policy. that's fine". This makes a lot of people happy (even though they may be paying more than they should - that's their choice).
3. Add a Public option by taking a copy of (iirc) Medicare.
4. Let people buy into this affordable Public Option, according to their means, even to the extent that the very poorest will be provided with it for free. You will pretty much be at 100% coverage at that point.
5. Properly fund that public option, so that it is seen to be an effective and affordable policy. Then over time, more people will be willing to join this, rather than private policies.
6. Lower prescription drug costs (in fact, where people are on certain drugs for life, either put them on a Long Term Disability scheme where they get the drugs for free), or have a scheme where most of the drug cost is covered by the government)

As for the Swedes, Danes and French, they pay a LOT of tax to pay for the services they get. It's important to compare apples to apples. It's hard enough to get Americans to pay the tax they DO pay.

As for the British, their NHS is creaking from underfunding by the Tory government (depending where you are, you could wait a week to see a doctor), and that's something to be way about in the US, if there was M4A. Every time the GOP get in, they'd look to cut M4A.

US has over 300 million.

tell constituents how much their taxes would have to increase.

Lichtenstein has like 38 thousand people. Luxembourg and Montenegro have 500k and 600k people which is the same size as vermont.

There are articles on why it failed. Here’s 4 reasons from Forbes. (There’s 6 but I think I’m limited to 4 clips?)

Except for Britain and Canada, countries that have social healthcare have small populations, and there are medical procedures that are not covered. Those countries also have citizens that practice better health maintenance than ours do.

Our country is diverse, with people that are health conscious and as a result avoid hospitalization, and people that on a daily basis don't give much attention to their health.

In my area of my state, obesity is a massive problem. The cost of extensive healthcare for people that develop heart and vascular problems due to being grossly overweight will overwhelm a system, it will take multiples of people practicing good health maintenance to counteract the impact on the system on one person who is not.

Lastly, Europe's healthcare systems were started up during rebuild from World Wars, WWI for some, WWII for others. We have had only one war in our history as a nation (after we formed) where a large amount of our landmass was devastated by war, so our ability to do healthcare as part of a rebuild didn't happen, our rebuild focused on the intercontinental rail system and landgrant colleges, both of which have been massive economic engines for the nation.

I don't believe we will see MFA as Sanders and Warren are proposing. What we can do is something like Canada did, except allow states to form multi-state healthcare compacts and dictate the conditions for health insurance companies that sell there, as well as negotiate drug prices or buy drugs from Canada or Mexico.

California is looking into an interesting concept, setting up it's own drug company to make generic drugs. The only issue that I have with that is California going it alone instead of pulling in states like Oregon, Washington and Colorado to join in the effort. The same group of states could even set up their own full coverage healthcare system (that would be similar to Canada, where some provinces chose to go forward with healthcare reform instead of waiting for recalcitrant provinces).

world with our health care system. Every other country has a form of "socialized medicine." Nobody, apparently, wants our health care system so we sure as hell aren't a shining example of a health care system that works for everyone.

That was my point. You've given me lots of good information and thanks!

eventually force the country toward universal healthcare. For example blue states, even ones not near eachother can set up their universal system that covers all their citizens and fund it through a state tax (which is a function of the Legistlature only and not subject to federal review). Of course, Trump would threaten to cut off federal funds, that is why we need to get rid of him in November.

Of course, if the voting machines are rigged, then we have lost more than a reformed health care system, we've lost our democracy.

and now is cost prohibitive.

People will over use it. Outpatient quick care is far less expensive than an ER visit. Phone and e-conferencing with doctors and nurses is popping up. Co-pays make people think. The system must in the short run sort the severity of cases better.

If Canada and the UK can make it work (which they have), why can't we?



-Laelth

US has over 300 million citizens.

Here’s an interesting article. Most of it is about overuse of diagnostic tests, hospitalizations, treatments , but it does include what they call

people think about the amount of prescription drugs they were getting previously for free. It wasn't high but when people were previously it made them more cautious.

Joe has done something to improve our broken healthcare delivery system. He helped engineer the ACA. Bernie actually voted for the ACA, so he deserves some credit too.

But suggesting that M4A is a pipe-dream is counterproductive, imo. If the UK can do it, and Canada can do it ("it" being some form of taxpayer-funded, comprehensive medical care that is available to everyone for no extra charge), then we in the United States can do it too. It's not unrealistic. More importantly, it's not helpful to suggest that M4A is unrealistic, and that's what I see Joe doing here.

-Laelth

Aspire away for something wonderful. But don't get high and mighty and attack others for sticking to the pragmatic.

-Laelth

We got the ACA, and Republicans have destroyed major parts of it. I doubt they are going to work with you to fix it. Wages are down, health costs are up. Most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and are one paycheck away from being homeless. Family debt is higher. Owning a home is out of reach for a lot of people. The only ones doing well are the wealthy and powerful.

their attack on pre-existing conditions. They did a bi-partisan deal to finally fix the ACA, but Trump got McConnell to block it. The GOP knows it's killing them but Trump's vendetta against Obama, is stopping the fix. If Trump loses in November, and Dems win back the Senate, Republicans will be at the top of the queue to fix healthcare, as it has been their top policy millstone around their rotten necks, and they want rid of it as an issue.

Link to tweet

That fact that someone started a thread just to express concern about his performance to me meant he did well.

popular with progressives, but which may doom in the GE and leave very little room for anything
but defending them.

Incidentally, how many Revolutions does it take to name a post office?

Link to tweet

There has been a dramatic shift of public sentiment toward Medicare for All over the last four years. Increasingly it is finally become an issue whose time has come, or at least is more rapidly approaching. And I give much of the credit for that to Bernie Sanders, whether or not it could pass through Congress in 2020.

It takes time to build a winning constituency to push through a major change. It does not logically flow from that fact however that the sensible course defaults to halting work on building that constituency. We have moved much closer to achieving it over the last four years. The stronger we make the case, the sooner we will get there. We can't pass an amendment to repeal Citizens United through Congress now either. That doesn't mean we should stop advocating for that amendment either.It is needed now more than ever.

competitors, but not Biden?

And that means scoring points against competitors. I was only referring to the "irony" that Medicare for All had been lying comatose without any clear signs of life for most of those decades but NOW (partially due to Bernie) it is increasingly winning support, with the public at least. Of course not everyone, but the concept can legitimately be said to have gained traction in the last few years.

I'll be honest. Joe may become our nominee and it heartens me to see him combative, as long as he does so fairly (and I'm not trying to imply that he isn't)

we might freaking have it by now.

...as well as a Dem House, the ACA would be intact and improving. Instead we have Moscow Mitch chuckling and calling himself the Grim Reaper because he kills bills -- Mme Speaker has sent over more than 400 bills on every topic of importance, by the way.

The other flaw is that governors and legislatures in red states have done their damndest to make the ACA unworkable where they rule.

So I really don't see M4A as an easy fix to America's political and societal problem. We're most of the way there if we restore the ACA and then build in it, but only if we not only get rid of Trump but nearly every GOP Senator and Governor. Has Bernie got a plan for that?

how the hell is he going to get MFA through Congress?

Who needs anything more?

Up to an including July 16, 1969, you could just as easily say "Georges Méliès has been talking about going to the moon for seventy years and it hasn't happened yet."

Sanders has a lot of talk, but where's the action?