It really is this simple

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Either you believe every American is entitled to quality medical care whenever he or she needs it and as long as he or she needs it or you don't. Everything else is commentary.

[HughBeaumont]

1. Multi-payer should be the REAL litmus test.

If one calls themselves a Democrat and cannot even support a multi-payer system (which is what we SHOULD have received, had the ConservaDems not kiboshed it), they should just get the hell out of this party.

There's absolutely NO logical reason not to support at least a public option multi-payer system. NONE.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I don't think there's anybody on this board who opposes a public option.

[HughBeaumont]

3. I'd really like so much to believe that.

I'm just not completely sure that the "My Party Right or Wrong" people do.

I still feel ConservaDem opposition to the public option lost us the country. If America had and were able to utilize the benefits of a multi-payer system, we wouldn't even be discussing 2017 GOP ubiquity right now.

[stonecutter357]

11. lots and lots of RWNJ's on this board .....

[BigmanPigman]

4. That should be the party consensus from now on and

they should run with it in 2018 since 49% of Americans favor Single Payer.

[ehrnst]

9. The party platform has in it securing Universal Health Care as goal.

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#universal-health

And Americans respond differently to different questions about Single Payer.

Which poll are you quoting?

And what if 51% of Americans turn out not to want it? Is that equal reason to drop it? Because there are many ways that the GOP can make it seem like it's a big lie.

Remember the ACA?

[SusanaMontana41]

25. The big lie. Yup.

Somehow the GOP has convinced the people who like the ACA and who need it the most to oppose Obamacare.

Spin is everything. Democrats have to spin it correctly and consistently.

[bluepen]

5. 100% agree. I thought from the start the health reform

should have done one major thing (among other relatively minor tweaks): repeal the barriers to Medicare. That’s it. Open it up. Let people buy in at the current premium, and have a subsidy of some kind for those who need it.

If “gubmint health care” (as they call it) is SO bad, then people who oppose it shouldn’t worry one bit about private companies having to compete, right?

This is my #1 voting issue. I’m at different points on the political spectrum for some issues, but guaranteed access to health care, to me, is non-negotiable in terms of it having to be there for people. The only debate, for me, is how to get there, and my starting point is opening up Medicare as an option.

[HughBeaumont]

13. I think it's because with a public option driving costs instead of private SETTING costs . . .

. . . conglomerates and their executives would only be merely ridiculously wealthy instead of juggernaut wealthy.

They have the driver's seat and have bought off politicians to keep it that way.

I never understood opposition from the Democratic side. What TROUBLE would it be for a multi-payer system? If people want Cadillac health care, let them continue paying through the nose for it. If someone wants a little of both, let them HAVE a little of both; one supplementing the other.

What we have now is not even a true free market system . . . because in a free market system, there'd be no barrier between patient and provider. As it is now, there are tons of costly ones, making what we have Mercantile CullCare.

As a parent with a kid that has a pre-existing condition, I will never forgive or forget any sell-out politician that makes my child's health care harder and more expensive to attain.

[ehrnst]

28. "Support universal health coverage"

just doesn't have the same bumpersticker impact as "Medicare for All"

Very shrewd politics.

[ismnotwasm]

6. Yes

Every decent human being being should be “for” universal health care. How we get there can be, and is—debated, discussed, built up, torn down, used as thought experiments or math projects, but getting there is the actual goal.

[ehrnst]

8. I wish that Universal Health Care was the goal for everyone

but for many, the goal is getting the "M4A" bill, despite other more possible ways to achieve it.

[ismnotwasm]

16. It should be

Everyone should have access to healthcare

I was looking at our supplies the other day—chest Tube kits, suction canisters, special respirator masks. Dialysis tubing and supplies. Gloves. Paracentesis and LP kits. I was looking at the country of make, and company of origin.

While some share the same company name, they are made in various countries, from Mexico to Scotland. I was wondering, who manages these with a Medicare for all model? Will hospitals manage their supply contracts or will the government? I’m planning on doing a little research, because these questions are not answered in the current proposed M4A Bill.

We are going to switch to a new temporary dialysis catheter. I hate the current one, and We complain a lot—

[ehrnst]

24. Those are vital details. They can't be brushed off. (nt)

[SusanaMontana41]

30. "We can't do it because we've never done it that way."

"We can't do it because we've always done it this way."

All change is difficult, but that's not a reason to change nothing. Can't progress without change.

[ismnotwasm]

32. I understand that

My point being that change must be planned for and details matter.

[ehrnst]

7. Saying universal health care can only be done with M4A is "commentary"

Because it's not really that simple.

[Expecting Rain]

10. I hear the echos of Hillel...

Shana tova.

[Ligyron]

14. Oh that's right

To a sweet year for all!

[hamsterjill]

12. Every American should have quality health care.

Period.

That said, I'm interested in the details. For example, if we have "Medicare for All", are we still on the hook for the 20% normally patient paid? Because the 20% can still bankrupt some Americans.

I want full coverage for everyone. Period. No one should be without healthcare when it's needed. It's absurd that people are still dying in 2017 because some people haven't figured out that health care is more important than war mongering.

[Grammy23]

18. Americans have had a steady diet of propaganda and misinformation

fed to us for a very long time. They have been conditioned to believe that any kind of "socialized" medicine is a bad thing. We have been told lies about how much other countries citizens hate their health care system, even though they have a system that helps make sure they all have access to the system. We have been told that they "ration" their system, even though we do the same thing but just don't call it that. We have been told our system is "the best in the world" even though the statistics do not bear that out. We have been conditioned to believe that anyone can get the health care they need, even undocumented immigrants, if they show up in an emergency room.

There has been a lot of false information given to Americans in order to convince us we don't want a single payer system, even though we have a system already in place that is a single payer---Medicare. Go tell a Senior Citizen you are going to take their Medicare away or make major changes to it and you might have a fight on your hands. Ask one like me who has a good supplemental policy for their Medicare policy who has had major surgery twice for knee replacements that had zero co-pays and I guarantee you will encounter someone who resists making massive changes to my single payer system. (Well, dual pay since it is Medicare plus United Health Care supplemental.)

A re-education campaign needs to be done in order to explain how a single payer really works. Real life examples will help to show how it will affect the average consumer. The propaganda works to bias people against single payer , but they can be re-educated if you do it properly. Once they understand, they will demand it.

[hamsterjill]

20. Although I agree with your post, I'm not sure you were replying to MY post.

Am I missing something? Forgive me if I am.

I'm most definitely in favor of healthcare for all. But my point was that some people on Medicare don't have the supplemental policies and can't afford the 20% copay.

Healthcare should be a right for everyone. End of story.

[Grammy23]

23. No, absolutely not disagreeing with you!

Just observing how hard it is to overcome the propaganda fed to us for eons. People can be seriously misguided by how such a program works and will reject it because they have been biased against it.

Like you, I think health care as needed should be available to all. And I include dental, vision and hearing aids in that, too. When people neglect their teeth, their whole body suffers! If you can't see because you need glasses, it can hold you back from many things, such as academic success or employment, driving, etc. It makes no sense to eliminate those things from basic health care coverage!

Our whole society will be better off if we have a healthier society. More people will be able to contribute to the society if their health care needs are addressed. Plus the quality of life will be infinitely better for so many of our citizens! It is a win for all of us to make sure everyone of us can get health care when we need it.

[hamsterjill]

27. +1000

Well said!

[Trust Buster]

15. Abraham Lincoln entered office without abolishing slavery as a political goal.

He understood that the political will did not exist at that time. It took a war to change that political landscape. The logic of this thread would hold that, therefore, Lincoln was against abolishing slavery when he entered office. This OP is very intolerant and nearsighted IMO.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Lincoln's heart was always with the abolitionists...

Lincoln's goal was always ending slavery. The dilemma he wrestled with was how to accomplish that goal while mitigating the costs, just as the goal of anybody that holds himself or herself out as a liberal believes everybody is entitled to health care regardless of the ability to pay. The disagreement is on tactics.

[MadDAsHell]

17. I think the challenge we will always have is the studies that show so much of health is behavioral.

How do we convince a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps"-minded society that everyone should pay for everyone's healthcare, when studies show that a significant portion of an individual's health outcomes and costs are a direct result of his/her own behavior and choices?

I can see the forest through the trees and understand why single payer is the only method that makes sense, but many cannot get over the idea of a system with so little accountability for personal choices.

That's what we have to overcome.

[hamsterjill]

22. So much is genetic.

I am not arguing with the premise in your post. I understand what you're saying, and you are correct in that there are many who don't want to pay for someone else's bad choices.

But how do you differentiate between "bad choices" and what is "genetic"?

We have to reach a point of morality/compassion whereby saving a life is paramount no matter what the understory. When we can reach that level mankind will have evolved a great deal.

[MadDAsHell]

31. Well put. But then we'll be told that "saving lives" should also include ending abortion.

That's one of the big challenges with our politics climate. Everything is circular.

You've got California arguing for state's rights; who'da thunk?

[JoeStuckInOH]

21. The devil is in the details, and it's not simple. I think the big sticking point is what is covered?

What is a public system willing to cover?
There's Emergency Room care for treatment. (accidents, injuries, emergencies, etc.)
There's medical care necessary care to survive.
There's medical care necessary to maintain a good quality of life.
There's elective medical expenses to maintain a good quality of life.
And then there's elective medical expenses that are entirely discretionary.

And then there's triage decisions where you have to decide which situations, while medically necessary, may simply be unfeasible for the system to provide coverage for to everybody. For example, If a $100,000 procedure only has a 1% chance of success (or alternatively, a $100,000 procedure only buys someone only weeks more to live)... does the patient get that procedure under public funds?

And this is all just medical-minded debating. There's the political hot topics to contend with, too. Trying to tell a bunch of bible thumpers that you're going to take their, presumably, increased taxes and give it to women requiring abortions or to people undergoing genter transitions is going to be a bigger shitfest than the rump presidency.

I'm very pessimistic about the situation.

[niyad]

26. health care is a HUMAN RIGHT- UN Universal Declaration of Rights

Article 25.


(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

[VaBchTgerLily]

29. I believe in access for all!