Sanders vs Cruz - ACA Debate

This is just speaking in cliches. You really didn't say anything about the issue, other than to cut down Sanders.

 

You seemed to think that we need to get rid of middlemen.

Do you dispute the statement that Sanders wants to be the middle man? That's what single payer is...

 

Makes no sense to me. You'll have to explain.

 

before I can explain anything I need to know what does make sense to you. Can you confirm that you think we need to get rid of obstacles that stand between you and the delivery of health care? (i.e. Middlemen)

 

I like the idea of no insurance involvement. We don't need that overhead. I can't believe all the paperwork from my insurance company. Just think of all the people processing that paperwork. The insurance companies aren't treating me, the doctor is...

 

Okay, so starting with the the premise that we "don't need that overhead" that insurance causes can we first both agree what insurance is?

Insurance is a risk management tool. It allows people to protect themselves against the risk of an unexpected expense in exchange for a fee. It is not intended to increase the quality of health care service, reduce the expense of the delivery of care (note that this is not the same as reducing the risk of incurring expense), or increase individual access to care. They are not unlike a blackjack table at the casino. You're betting on the chance that you get struck with an illness you can't afford, and they're betting you won't be.

All that paperwork and overhead you're talking about is an incredibly detailed research projected designed to assess (determine the cost of) & mitigate the risk of incurring expenses in the health care market. As such, they are very good at determining your potential for incurring risk. They don't generate all this overhead because it wastes them money. They do it to make themselves more efficient. The Sander's refrain that the government can be more efficient at assessing this risk without incurring the same overhead is laughable. In fact, the government has less incentive to be more efficient. They aren't spending their own money like the insurance companies are. They are spending free money that grows on the citizens of America.

For this reason, I disagree with you that insurance isn't needed. Insurance isn't a bad idea. It's, in fact, a great idea as long as you view it as a safety net, and not a bank account you use to pay for health care. That said, I certainly will agree with you that insurance is being misused as a bank account that people use to pay for health care. In this context it makes them exactly like a middleman, and no different at all from the Sander's single payer proposition. It's the person who pays for a service that makes a decision whether or not to pay, not the person who provides or the person to receives. Imagine for a second that Sander's realizes his dream, institutes single payer, and then the very next year the country elects a guy like Donald Trump to manage that system. Sander's would be apoplectic, but the problem isn't just the person running the system. The problem is the system.

There should certainly still be health insurance in America. It just should not be used as a way to pay for services that there is 100% risk that you know you're going to have to pay. People should want to remove the insurance model from routine services like their yearly exam, or to pick up antibiotics for their chest cold, or to cover the cost of an elective surgery. These types of uses needlessly drive up the cost of insurance while simultaneously inhibiting the forces of competition that tend to drive the cost of care downward. It doesn't matter if insurance is in the way, or the government. They'll both be in the way in the same capacity.

 

tillastdrop argument is simply eviscerated by this. Bravo.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny, this is precisely what I think about you. Go figure.

 

A more apt comparison would be sports betting, the goal to pay out exactly what you take in less your service fees. I'm not sure where the notion that insurance == health care came from.

 

Please. Government protects big business in every way, shape and form.

Legislation doesn't see the light of day unless palms are laced.

People can argue to get government out of the equation without believing the lie that somehow a nation with 40% working poor, if they're lucky enough to have a job, will somehow be able to afford healthcare via a direct transaction.

I'm arguing to get government out of the equation so all we have left are business suits with no tanks to defend them.

The biggest lie perpetrated on the American public was the notion the government is an entity all unto itself, and is the people's only means for justice.

The government is a tool for big business, hence why the government is, "always broken. We'll figure it out someday".

The government runs perfectly. It is just supposed to only work for them. That is why it is never "fixed". Because for the people who run it, and could actually change things, it has never worked better.

Hence, why you types argue no government vs government, you win either way. But watch you all, both sides of the aisle, turn into one unit as a nationalist walks into the room. Because the statists and the producers are gears of the same mechanism.

The people aren't supposed to know genuine governments for the people exist.

 

Original video deleted:

[video=youtube;Rvy1iDKRk74]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rvy1iDKRk74[/video]

 

Nationalists are protectionists. I don't really think you know what you're talking about when you proclaim nationalism is the answer to creating a robust middle class. I've pointed it out many times that you're using socialist talking points. This is another example.

No, you're not arguing to get government out of the equation. You're arguing for the government to use their tanks to enforce your nationalist agenda. Telling a business, as Trump just mentioned during the last press conference, that they have to use American Steel in order to be approved for the zoning of a pipeline is in fact injecting government into the equation. Penalizing the import of goods that Americans want to consume through taxes is in fact injecting government into the equation. Using government to threaten & punish foreign market competition is in fact injecting government into the equation.

You're complaining about the working poor, but the goal of your system is to use government to artificially increase the cost of goods that the 40% working poor need to consume! Does that make any sense?

 

A lot to digest. I heard an American coworker speak recently, who worked in Denmark. He had to get some medical attention while he was there. He brought his company issued card with him, went into a public clinic, was treated, and was on his way. No paper-work. He had to follow-up, and visit some other specialists, was treated, and was on his way. No paperwork. No insurance.

I think this system is much-much better for the everyday medical attention that you talked about. Why involve a middle-man? Now when it comes to specialty surgeries - brain tumors, heart bypasses, transplants, etc - I hear the distinction is lesser. As a matter of fact, I heard from the same person, that often elderly are denied certain treatments. It stands to reason that this is a strength of the insurance system. Of course then you get into all the pre-affordable care act issues - pre-existing conditions, etc. There were huge issues with the pre-ACA system of "Subsidized Emergency Room Care" which resulted in vastly higher premium increases for 30+ years. The ACA has it's own issues. When you treat all citizens, regardless of the health care system, it's going to cost a lot, especially with expensive, more advanced treatments such as MRIs, etc.

So you're against government-run. What's your solution?

 

The solution is to realize that not all problems have a single solution, and that some problems don't have a solution at all. Death, for example, is inescapable.

If the problem with death is that too many people are doing it wrong, the rest of us might need to seriously evaluate the choices those people made and make different ones. For instance, if you're concerned with your ability to afford health care, perhaps it should a bit higher on your spending priority. Perhaps you should be a bit more aware of the types of care that you can provide yourself. Perhaps you should start making some choices to change your own behavior, rather than delegating those choices to a suit in a seat in Washington.

One of the typical examples of the voluntary market system's power in regards to health care is Lasik eye surgery. High customer satisfaction, high tech, high competition, falling cost...

 

I don't disagree with anything you said. However, I don't see why any of these examples requires an insurance middle-man. My daughter worked in the insurance industry for years. She finally left, stating that this industry is totally bankrupt morally. I asked her why my insurance statements have a column for "insurance discount", often with numbers that are 50-75% of the cost of the treatment. She laughed and said, this is how they justify their existence to their constituents.

 

It's not the job of any institution, public or private, to define morality. That is an individual responsibility. If you don't find insurance moral, don't buy it. But this sentiment is diametrically opposed to the values of Sanders which dictate a moral directive to everyone. You can't not buy insurance under the Sanders model of care distribution.

Sanders' ethos boils down to: society has a right to force you to provide healthcare to others. That's the bottom line to an individual right to a service that must be provided by someone else.

 

I don't agree. Under a single-payer system, one still has the right not to seek healthcare. If your argument is that they pay taxes to pay for the healthcare that they don't receive, that's no different with Corporate-provided healthcare. Either way - you're paying, but the former removes the middle man. And even that can be optional. I'm sure that in many single-payer systems, if one wants an option of health-care beyond the government-provided, insurance is available.

 

Just curious of you even understand what insurance is. Ever heard of an actuary?

 

yes bernie fooled a great many coming out against trade, but calls racism on the Presidents immigration position.

the socialists in europe exempt their rich from the bills of universal health care, cruz supports globalism so Americans can't afford private insurance when their jobs leave for his donors, their both frauds.

President Trump can't fight a globalist congress who gets richer from unfair trade, his own party is built on the cheap labor of immigrants onshore and trade deficits from foreign labor offshore. he will most likely solve everything with higher debt spending for infrastructure to create those high wage jobs for the poorer half of the country. its not perfect, but it will do.

 

See, you've just conflated two things, insurance and care. I didn't suggest that Sanders would force you to seek care. He will, however, force you to pay for the insurance that supposedly covers the cost of that care. You're not removing the middleman, you're just exchanging the private middle man for a public one. I didn't say you couldn't NOT seek care. I said you couldn't NOT pay for insurance against your need for care, and that's the truth. There's no difference between private insurance and public insurance other than the fact that when the government makes itself the only game in town, everyone stands to suffer when it makes a bad call on the field. The single payer system magnifies the consequences of mistakes because it applies them to everyone. After all, the public system still has to identify risk, it still has to approve and reject claims, it still has to manage the money coming in against the money going out.

Let's revisit what insurance is, and why people participate in it. You pay for insurance because you are betting that you will pay the insurance company less then your potential to generate health care cost. It's NOT a way to reduce the cost of health care. It's a way to get someone else to agree to pay that cost. You pay the insurance company x amount of bucks a month because you're concerned that the hospital is going to hand you an invoice with a ridiculous number of zeros on it at some point in your life. Your expectation is that you're going to win the bet, and pay the insurance company less than the ridiculous amount and they're going to be there if you ever need to pay a ridiculous bill.

Logically, this bet cannot be a bet that everyone can win. Lots of people have to lose the bet in order for the money that pays your bill to exist. Otherwise, the insurer would never take the bet. It would be financially impossible for them to pay everyone more in benefits than everyone pays into the plan. This is regardless of how efficient they are. This is regardless of how much money their CEO makes. This is regardless of how miserly or generous they are.

This is exactly the lie that the single payer system promotes. They promote the illusion that you're going to pay in less than they are going to pay on your behalf. It's not mathematically possible. And so they have to pick who's allowed to win, and who must be forced to lose. These win-lose choices in the hands of a large monopoly like the government are an inherently bad thing. You seem to be concerned about the choices being made by large corporations. What's larger than the government? If you're worried that your dollar has little control of a large corporation, how could your one little vote be worth more?

 

Absolutely, as mentioned, my daughter worked in the Insurance business. She worked with many actuaries. Risk assessment is applicable to health care with insurance - part of the overhead. This overhead is N/A with public health care. Pre-existing conditions are N/A with public health care.