General Bernie Sanders: Why We Need Medicare for All

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Freeloading Rusty

Here comes Rover, sniffin’ at your ass
Jan 11, 2016
26,916
26,588
Bernie Sanders: Why We Need Medicare for All
This is a pivotal moment in American history. Do we, as a nation, join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee comprehensive health care to every person as a human right? Or do we maintain a system that is enormously expensive, wasteful and bureaucratic, and is designed to maximize profits for big insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, Wall Street and medical equipment suppliers?

We remain the only major country on earth that allows chief executives and stockholders in the health care industry to get incredibly rich, while tens of millions of people suffer because they can’t get the health care they need. This is not what the United States should be about.

All over this country, I have heard from Americans who have shared heartbreaking stories about our dysfunctional system. Doctors have told me about patients who died because they put off their medical visits until it was too late. These were people who had no insurance or could not afford out-of-pocket costs imposed by their insurance plans.

I have heard from older people who have been forced to split their pills in half because they couldn’t pay the outrageously high price of prescription drugs. Oncologists have told me about cancer patients who have been unable to acquire lifesaving treatments because they could not afford them. This should not be happening in the world’s wealthiest country.

Americans should not hesitate about going to the doctor because they do not have enough money. They should not worry that a hospital stay will bankrupt them or leave them deeply in debt. They should be able to go to the doctor they want, not just one in a particular network. They should not have to spend huge amounts of time filling out complicated forms and arguing with insurance companies as to whether or not they have the coverage they expected.

Even though 28 million Americans remain uninsured and even more are underinsured, we spend far more per capita on health care than any other industrialized nation. In 2015, the United States spent almost $10,000 per person for health care; the Canadians, Germans, French and British spent less than half of that, while guaranteeing health care to everyone. Further, these countries have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates than we do.

The reason that our health care system is so outrageously expensive is that it is not designed to provide quality care to all in a cost-effective way, but to provide huge profits to the medical-industrial complex. Layers of bureaucracy associated with the administration of hundreds of individual and complicated insurance plans is stunningly wasteful, costing us hundreds of billions of dollars a year. As the only major country not to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry, we spend tens of billions more than we should.

The solution to this crisis is not hard to understand. A half-century ago, the United States established Medicare. Guaranteeing comprehensive health benefits to Americans over 65 has proved to be enormously successful, cost-effective and popular. Now is the time to expand and improve Medicare to cover all Americans.

This is not a radical idea. I live 50 miles south of the Canadian border. For decades, every man, woman and child in Canada has been guaranteed health care through a single-payer, publicly funded health care program. This system has not only improved the lives of the Canadian people but has also saved families and businesses an immense amount of money.

On Wednesday I will introduce the Medicare for All Act in the Senate with 15 co-sponsors and support from dozens of grass-roots organizations. Under this legislation, every family in America would receive comprehensive coverage, and middle-class families would save thousands of dollars a year by eliminating their private insurance costs as we move to a publicly funded program.

The transition to the Medicare for All program would take place over four years. In the first year, benefits to older people would be expanded to include dental care, vision coverage and hearing aids, and the eligibility age for Medicare would be lowered to 55. All children under the age of 18 would also be covered. In the second year, the eligibility age would be lowered to 45 and in the third year to 35. By the fourth year, every man, woman and child in the country would be covered by Medicare for All.

Needless to say, there will be huge opposition to this legislation from the powerful special interests that profit from the current wasteful system. The insurance companies, the drug companies and Wall Street will undoubtedly devote a lot of money to lobbying, campaign contributions and television ads to defeat this proposal. But they are on the wrong side of history.

Guaranteeing health care as a right is important to the American people not just from a moral and financial perspective; it also happens to be what the majority of the American people want. According to an April poll by The Economist/YouGov, 60 percent of the American people want to “expand Medicare to provide health insurance to every American,” including 75 percent of Democrats, 58 percent of independents and 46 percent of Republicans.

Now is the time for Congress to stand with the American people and take on the special interests that dominate health care in the United States. Now is the time to extend Medicare to everyone.

UPDATED: More Democratic senators will co-sponsor Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill
Four more Democratic senators, Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), have announced that they will co-sponsor Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) Medicare for All bill.

Booker announced his support on NJTV news Monday afternoon, where he echoed comments made by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and others who have come out in support of the bill.

“You should not be punished because you are working class or poor…. I think health care should be a right to all,” Booker said. “This is something that’s got to happen. Obamacare was a first step in advancing this country, but I won’t rest until every American has a basic security that comes with having access to affordable health care.”

Shortly after Booker announced that he would co-sponsor the bill, Merkley announced he was joining his colleagues on Twitter.

“I’m co-sponsoring @SenSanders’ #MedicareForAll bill,” Merkley tweeted. “Health care should be a right for all, not a privilege just for the healthy & wealthy.”

Just hours later, Mic broke the news that Gillibrand, who has come out in the past in favor of single-payer, will also co-sponsor the bill.

Whitehouse announced his endorsement last Friday through a spokesperson, who spoke with WPRI.

“Senator Whitehouse intends to cosponsor this bill to move the conversation forward on single-payer health care,” the spokesperson said. “The senator will also continue to press for legislation to create a public health insurance option, which he co-authored with Sens. Brown and Franken, and has long supported.”

The senators join an already star-studded cast of co-sponsors. Last week, progressive darling Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) made the unsurprising announcement that she would co-sponsor the bill, and the week before, Harris, who is considered a rising star in the party, emerged as the bill’s first co-sponsor.

Warren and Harris, along with Sanders himself, have been discussed as likely candidates for president in 2020. Booker and Gillibrand’s endorsements in particular are yet another sign that support for single-payer is likely going to be the standard in 2020, no longer a deviation from the party line.

Although he did not endorse Sanders’ specific bill, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) said last week that he also supports a single-payer system.

“My personal view is we’ve got to start looking at single-payer,” Baucus said Thursday at Montana State University. “I think we should have hearings…. We’re getting there. It’s going to happen.”

Sanders and his co-sponsors will unveil the Medicare for All bill Wednesday.

UPDATE: As of Tuesday afternoon at 3:15 p.m., Sanders’ bill has garnered 11 total public co-sponsors. In addition to Warren, Gillibrand, Booker, Harris, Merkley, and Whitehouse, Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have all announced their intention to co-sponsor the bill.

“Proud to announce my support for single-payer #MedicareForAll led by @SenSanders. Let’s make healthcare a right, not a luxury,” Blumenthal tweeted Tuesday.

Hirono, who is currently battling kidney cancer, tweeted, “We are all one diagnosis away from a major illness. When that time comes, no one should have to worry about whether they can afford care that might save their life.”

View: https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley/status/907302848261709825


View: https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/906537145246109696


View: https://twitter.com/SenBlumenthal/status/907633045003481088


View: https://twitter.com/maziehirono/status/907632080867262464
 

Robbie Hart

All Biden Voters Are Mindless Sheep
Feb 13, 2015
51,024
51,347
Where do you expect the senators, congressman, all govt officials and their rich friends who run private hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies to get their money from if this happens?
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
If Bernie is the face and "healthcare is a right, not a privilege" is the sound byte argument, this will fail. And it doesn't have to.

Bernie should put it forward and move out of the way for others to promote. That seems to be the broad case starting here. Bernie's people will already support this, but Bernie becomes self defeating when he gets too ramped up in ranting professorial mode.

Gallup and Pew reported 50-60% of Americans support that the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all citizens earlier this year. These are hardly a consensus and not the highest public poll numbers even the last 15 years.

Pushing the right vs privilege argument has not made a change since it started in the 1970s.

It becomes an opinion/emotion argument and will eventually get trapped in the current identity politics. Covered Americans, which are most (and an even higher number of voters), will fear their choices and expedient access will be altered by such a move. And in many cases they are right, even where it doesn't reduce health outcomes. This primary voting group needs a reason to remove their choice in exchange for simplicity and outcomes to cost ratio.

Of all of the universal proposals, a thinned out Medicare (part D was contentious for 65 year olds, it should be for everyone else too) makes the most sense. The supplemental market could be robust to continue choice. Entirely private insurance could still exist for the very wealthy.

But im not sure that most americans will support it if you can't get the main picture down 2-3 impactful changes to rally around.

If we're going to roll this out as the grand system, perhaps now is the time to overhaul the billing which is a grotesque beast thanks to Medicare requirements. Ever wonder what your doctor is doing all that time on the computer??? Making sure that we click enough boxes to document not just what we did, or what's important for your health care, or the lawyers...but also medical billing requirements built on boxes instead of doing good healthcare.

Medicare itself has fairly low overhead in administration. Medicare requirements and policies are plenty of the 33% overhead in medicine. These need addressing too. Not just expansion. The expected cost savings will not come with this system. It's only got worse since the move to icd 10.
 

cruedi

Member
Sep 14, 2017
21
24
Always funny to see Bernie, the man who cast the deciding vote on Obamacare, which allow CEO's of companies like UNH / Aetna to triple there rates and pay these executives millions complaining about it.

Check out the CEO's salaries and the stock prices for the last 5 years, vs the 5 years before Obamacare and see the difference.

Also, over the last 7 years literally hundreds of thousands of people have been hired because of Obamacare, my small local Dr. office has hired 3 full time staffers to deal with billing and insurance companies. Another friend of mine got a job a blue cross, where he heads a group of over 100 people, all they do is produce reports showing the Blue Cross/Blue Shield is compliant with Obamacare. Most of these people will get laid off if we go to medicare for all. Couple that with the incredible stock market tumble caused by companies like UNH / Aetna losing well over 75% of their value in less than a year and you have an economic disaster bigger then anyone has seen.
 

cruedi

Member
Sep 14, 2017
21
24
Are 6 hour plus wait times normal for U.S. emergency rooms?
It depends on when/where/why you go to the ER.

They will always take more serious cases first no matter how long you've been there. If you go to the emergency room in Los Angles on a Friday night because you've twisted your ankle and think it may be broken, you'll probably be there a long time.

If you have a heart attack and arrive by ambulance you'll be seen right away.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,554
56,071
It depends on when/where/why you go to the ER.

They will always take more serious cases first no matter how long you've been there. If you go to the emergency room in Los Angles on a Friday night because you've twisted your ankle and think it may be broken, you'll probably be there a long time.

If you have a heart attack and arrive by ambulance you'll be seen right away.
You willing to offer anything the resembles a straight answer?
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
Are 6 hour plus wait times normal for U.S. emergency rooms?
Are you there for an emergency or the common cold that's been going on for 2 weeks?

Are you at an underfunded public urban hospital for a free standing ER?

Time could be 10 minutes or less...all the way to 20 hours. Yes, all day.

When will you be seen for your chest pain, gun shot wound, bleeding, etc? Right away pretty much everywhere.

This is a thing:




so is this insanity lol





Average wait time is about 30 minutes with disposition time (home or admitted) in about another 90.
 

Truck Party

TMMAC Addict
Mar 16, 2017
5,711
6,831
You willing to offer anything the resembles a straight answer?
A few years ago when I was taking care of my Dad, who was battling cancer, we made probably 1 trip a month to an ER over a year & 8 months & we never spent more than an hour waiting. Almost every time it was less than 15 minutes
 

TalkingLeaf

Well-Known Member
Nov 4, 2015
443
959
I think single payer will get more and more popular of an idea as time goes on.

I don't know enough about Medicare vs private insurance to debate the topic thoroughly, but i laugh when I hear people complain about the government sucking as reason to dismiss the idea of single payer. Like private for profit insurance companies whose goal is to provide the least amount of care as possible has been doing such a great job.

There has to be a better way but I have no idea what that is. Doesn't seem like anybody does, really.
 

Hauler

Been fallin so long it's like gravitys gone
Feb 3, 2016
46,877
58,892
I think single payer will get more and more popular of an idea as time goes on.

I don't know enough about Medicare vs private insurance to debate the topic thoroughly, but i laugh when I hear people complain about the government sucking as reason to dismiss the idea of single payer. Like private for profit insurance companies whose goal is to provide the least amount of care as possible has been doing such a great job.

There has to be a better way but I have no idea what that is. Doesn't seem like anybody does, really.
If the government is involved it will be fucked up and corrupt. That's all I know.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
I think single payer will get more and more popular of an idea as time goes on.

I used to think the same. I mean, it's all broken, it can't sustain forever....Now I'm not so sure without a significant paradigm shift. And I'm not really sure what that will be.





We are no difference in opinion that when GW came in office.


And the politics of it are easy to defeat:




I would argue that the decrease in the first graph represents the true politics of the matter. When looking at options for healthcare, just the theme of government involvement crashes. See the other graph to see how fast people jump ship.

People like single payer when "it's free".
 

Rambo John J

Baker Team
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
73,895
73,407
If Bernie is the face and "healthcare is a right, not a privilege" is the sound byte argument, this will fail. And it doesn't have to.

Bernie should put it forward and move out of the way for others to promote. That seems to be the broad case starting here. Bernie's people will already support this, but Bernie becomes self defeating when he gets too ramped up in ranting professorial mode.

Gallup and Pew reported 50-60% of Americans support that the government should be responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all citizens earlier this year. These are hardly a consensus and not the highest public poll numbers even the last 15 years.

Pushing the right vs privilege argument has not made a change since it started in the 1970s.

It becomes an opinion/emotion argument and will eventually get trapped in the current identity politics. Covered Americans, which are most (and an even higher number of voters), will fear their choices and expedient access will be altered by such a move. And in many cases they are right, even where it doesn't reduce health outcomes. This primary voting group needs a reason to remove their choice in exchange for simplicity and outcomes to cost ratio.

Of all of the universal proposals, a thinned out Medicare (part D was contentious for 65 year olds, it should be for everyone else too) makes the most sense. The supplemental market could be robust to continue choice. Entirely private insurance could still exist for the very wealthy.

But im not sure that most americans will support it if you can't get the main picture down 2-3 impactful changes to rally around.

If we're going to roll this out as the grand system, perhaps now is the time to overhaul the billing which is a grotesque beast thanks to Medicare requirements. Ever wonder what your doctor is doing all that time on the computer??? Making sure that we click enough boxes to document not just what we did, or what's important for your health care, or the lawyers...but also medical billing requirements built on boxes instead of doing good healthcare.

Medicare itself has fairly low overhead in administration. Medicare requirements and policies are plenty of the 33% overhead in medicine. These need addressing too. Not just expansion. The expected cost savings will not come with this system. It's only got worse since the move to icd 10.
so true

Bernie is the shit...but he is not an actor and is not backed by the dark side
 

Rambo John J

Baker Team
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
73,895
73,407
Are you there for an emergency or the common cold that's been going on for 2 weeks?

Are you at an underfunded public urban hospital for a free standing ER?

Time could be 10 minutes or less...all the way to 20 hours. Yes, all day.

When will you be seen for your chest pain, gun shot wound, bleeding, etc? Right away pretty much everywhere.

This is a thing:




so is this insanity lol





Average wait time is about 30 minutes with disposition time (home or admitted) in about another 90.
Took quite a bit of time for me when I walked in with ruptured appendix...hours and hours...we have a pretty nice hospital, Riverbend

I was a ghostly green color in the face and was going to the bathroom to dry heave every 5-10 minutes...pain level of 9 in my gut

Had to fill out paperwork LOL

SO I basically died once already...it was a bad feeling...My surgeon was the former lead trauma surgeon for the air force in Iraq/afghan...he said it was a freaking mess in there(my guts)
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
Took quite a bit of time for me when I walked in with ruptured appendix...hours and hours...we have a pretty nice hospital, Riverbend

I was a ghostly green color in the face and was going to the bathroom to dry heave every 5-10 minutes...pain level of 9 in my gut

Had to fill out paperwork LOL

Must be gastroenteritis, let him wait!
 

Rambo John J

Baker Team
First 100
Jan 17, 2015
73,895
73,407
Must be gastroenteritis, let him wait!
I added to the post...thought you might like what I added...dude was cool, he was all business tho

Plus I have an unreal pain threshold...so I think that I should have made a scene and screamed instead of being a tough mofo and just making faces.
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
44,116
89,900
SO I basically died once already...it was a bad feeling...My surgeon was the former lead trauma surgeon for the air force in Iraq/afghan...he said it was a freaking mess in there
NOT TODAY ISIS, NOT TODAY.
 

BeardOfKnowledge

The Most Consistent Motherfucker You Know
Jul 22, 2015
60,554
56,071
Are you there for an emergency or the common cold that's been going on for 2 weeks?

Are you at an underfunded public urban hospital for a free standing ER?

Time could be 10 minutes or less...all the way to 20 hours. Yes, all day.

When will you be seen for your chest pain, gun shot wound, bleeding, etc? Right away pretty much everywhere.

This is a thing:




so is this insanity lol





Average wait time is about 30 minutes with disposition time (home or admitted) in about another 90.
For perspective. Here in Canada (America should have great free healthcare like Canada, right?) If you walk into an ER and aren't in immediate threat of death you're looking at a minimum of 6 hours. More like 10-12. Surgeries take months and months and months to actually taken place and our taxes are higher than most insurance premiums. Single payer is dysfunctional at best.