Aaaaaah, capitalism at its finest.
You know, statistically they have way better healthcare results and access in Cuba.
I know you’re in a hurry, Ted. That’s one of the discussions we finally seem to be having.
At least several countries with national health care systems still have an element of private health care. Another fake arguement against Health Care for All.
The dark side of capitalism occurs when instead of profiting just from value-adding services, we start profiting from essential services that should be a right, not a paid privilege. My mother-in-law had dementia after a stroke and lost her home plus her life’s savings for assisted living expenses when we were no longer able to care for her ourselves. What was/is frightening was that she had twice what we have for retirement savings and it was all consumed.
To have so much money out of circulation, hoarded as an acquisition by the wealthy, is a sign of a very non-functional society. None of the ‘isms do well alone. It’s time for a hybrid economy that will sustain the entire population and truly value and appreciate their productivity efforts, not just pass their gains on to the wealthy at the top end of the income spectrum … the only ones who can afford America’s healthcare.
Ted seems to be confusing the current iteration of Medicare with the proposed Medicare for All. The Medicare for All proposals I’ve seen expands coverage in addition to expanding who is covered.
It will have to be Medicare for All Who Want It.
This happened to my grandmother. She had to bankrupt herself to get taken care of. I never have been able to understand this.
But in Cuba you can’t own a gun!
Medicare simply doesn’t pay for nursing home care.
There have been attempts to change that, but the budget hawks (that turn to sparrows whenever budget busting tax cuts are discussed) all start swooping and screaming about “CAN’T AFFORD IT”.
May they all go bankrupt and depend on Medicaid.
I live in Canada, and we are FAR from being a socialist country.
Several years back, don’t remember the circumstances but do clearly recall the conversation I had with one of your countrymen…He was telling me that it wasn’t so long ago, he was sitting pretty… Owned his home, no mortgage, sizable savings, toys galore, and looking forward to retirement….Then his wife became ill and required an extended hospital stay, and he had to come good for all expenses.
Ended up he had to sell his home, all his savings gone, and no more dreams of retirement, but still wasn’t enough….Ended up having to declare bankruptcy…
He stated that his life would be so much different if it had been Canada.
We are no brighter than the USA, but if we can do it here, what’s stopping you folks?
This illustrates why the phrase “Medicare For All” is misleading. Medicare has already been corrupted through “Medicare Advantage” plans and “Medicare Part D”. Both of those are just privatization. “Single payer” should be the catchphrase, not “Medicare For All”. (Which would, I understand, require a change to the Senate bill, but not the House bill).
Hillary Clinton tried to change our health care system back in the 1990s when Bill was president. Had she won in 2016 we might well be on our way to health care for all. But some people bought the conservative attacks on Hillary and believed the baloney Bernie Sanders was peddling. Hillary Clinton was by no means perfect at ll, but she was surely better than those two.
You get what you pay for.
Bernie isn’t the right choice either? Then who is? Just don’t vote and hope it works itself out?
Studies have shown that the USA has the highest cost of medical care in the world, by a huge margin: 50% higher per capita than #2. We do not get #1 healthcare to go with it, however; we’re somewhere around 27th or so, and we still don’t even cover everyone. There ARE more efficient ways, and every other industrialized nation in the world uses them. The idea that somehow there are no other solutions is pernicious nonsense promoted by the ignorant and the greedy who benefit.
The problem with “Medicare for All” as currently described and for that matter Romneycare/Obamacare is that it relies on the existing network of insurance providers.
In 1992, I attended the Catholic Healthcare Association conference. In the keynote address the following statement was made: “the #1 obstacle to providing affordable healthcare to all Americans is the insurance industry. Period.” And there we are.
Love the Clash shirt and heard the same message. you are dead on target with this one.
That about nails it Mr. Rall. And I enjoyed your op-ed in the WSJ.
My Grandmother had a Stroke and spent 15 years in a Home. She had worked very hard to set up for a nice retirement She died with a 100 bucks to Her name . We saw it for what it was paying for Her care such as it was. Why should the Government pay the Bills when the She had Money, they gutted Grandma Then picked up the Check for 14 years ? My Dad spent a lot of time hiding His Money so this can’t happen to Him.
This what I went through with my Mom. Used up all of te savings, sold the house, cashed in the puny life insurance, then medicare picked up nursing care. When she passed, medicare wanted reimbursing !!
The Merican way
Well, more and more Americans are opting out early. Like Willy Loman…
Lots of people go bankrupt every year over medical bills, this does not happen in most other countries.
Dems are called socialist and communist because they want to change this.
Two things: Yes, one must use up all of your resources (but not your home!) before Medicaid will begin paying for your nursing home care. It happened to my aunt who I was the legal guardian and conservator for over the last eight years of her life. Most of her savings (and she had a lot) paid for an “assisted living” situation for six years, (private pay ONLY), then two years in a nursing home. The second year in that nursing home was paid for by Medicaid, after her own savings ran dry. I witnessed no change in the quality of her care. Medicaid was supplemented by most of her Social Security income, which the nursing home took directly from the government.Medicare for all, or single payer, those are entirely different things. One or the other are possible, but Medicaid would continue as is, as far as I know right now. I think. Maybe. Oh, hell, who knows!?
We faced that with my mother. It turned out that in our / her case, having her live at home with a full time aid ran the money down just fast enough so that when she went into full time care elsewhere, she had gotten below the threshold. We sold the house to cover a little bit of the extra and every one of the sibs came out a few $thousand ahead after she passed. With the accent on “few”.
Well Mr. Rall….I agree, but it would have to be paired with some kind of wealth tax. Because it’s not clear that the expense should be collectively borne so that you (or anyone else) could pick up the money in your inheritance. My mom burned through $400k in nursing home expenses (but remember some of it comes from the social security check), we her children and heirs would have liked to have that for ourselves, but I’m not sure it’s reasonable to ask a family earning median income of $45k a year to pick up, in their taxes, part of the tab for my Mom’s 6 years in a nursing home, so that her nest egg would be there for her kids. So there is something that needs to be thought through there which is independent of the indisputable fact that the health care system is predatory. The late 19th century socialists were pretty adamant that any form of inherited money paved the road to massive inequality and I think that’s likely true. A system that consumes the patient’s resources so that s/he leaves nothing to the heirs is actually “fair” by that criteria. If on the other hand it leaves a surviving spouse in impoverished circumstances, well that’s not fair either. But there is the thorny issue that end of life expenses, if fully socialized, leave intact inheritances that are the basis for economic inequality over many generations.
One of the advantages of medicare for all is that we have a vote on coverage and expense. I do wonder why we haven’t used the vote to require negotiation of medicare drug prices.
It’s hard to make generalizations about Medicare-for-all because there are so many proposals.
I don’t know any proposal that eliminates Ted’s first frame, the Medicaid spend-down for those doomed to government-funded Long Term Care. Medicaid expansion could make that doom a little less pitiful, though. Right?
October 01, 2016
August 17, 2016