The medical lobby is already peddling lies about Medicare-for-all

[Donkees]

August 16, 2018

Excerpts:


Medicare-for-all is getting some real momentum behind it, with several more supporters winning congressional primaries on Tuesday night. The medical industry — drug companies, insurance companies, medical providers, and others — has thus been gearing up to preserve the fat profits they enjoy under the horrendous status quo. They've formed a group called The Partnership for America's Health Care Future (PAHCF) to run a propaganda campaign against universal health care.

Their main argument is pretty clearly going to be centered around loss-aversion. "Most Americans support commonsense, pragmatic solutions that don't interrupt the coverage they rely upon for themselves and their families," PAHCF spokesman Erik Smith told The Hill. (Jonathan Chait and Paul Krugman have made similar points.)

But this argument is garbage. Medicare-for-all would mean vastly more people enjoying good health care, and dramatically fewer people getting kicked off their insurance overall.

So why is the medical lobby mobilizing against this bill? It's simple: money. America's total health expenditures are roughly twice that of the OECD average — nearly 5 points of GDP (or about $900 billion) higher than Switzerland, the second-most expensive country. A great deal of that spending comes in the form of big corporate profits, pointless administrative busywork, and hugely excessive doctor salaries (especially for specialists). Sanders' Medicare-for-all bill would pay for expanded coverage and increased treatment access by wringing out some of those inefficiencies — on net, provider payments would be cut by about 11 percent.

This medical lobby effort against the idea is nothing more than greed.

http://theweek.com/articles/790380/medical-lobby-already-peddling-lies-about-medicareforall

[Sophia4]

2. I'm for medicare for all, but since some Americans want to keep their overpriced

insurance, my suggestion is that they be allowed to do so provided they pay into the medicare for all pot and then pay their private insurance company for whatever the private company requires them to pay above the medicare for all payment.

In other words, the government collects taxes to pay for medicare for all. The medicare for all pays for health insurance for most Americans mostly to non-profits or actual government health insurance. If some Americans want to continue with the private insurance they now have, they are responsible for paying their private insurance company the difference between the medicare for all charge that is the same for everyone and what the private insurance company wants to charge them.

That way everyone gets the insurance they want or can afford. Insurance coverage should, at minimum be the same for everyone in so far as covering usual medical costs.

If someone wants a private insurer to pay for massage, that someone can pay the additional insurance premium.

[ehrnst]

4. Will most people accept that?

You and I might, but considering the success of the GOP getting people to question why men have to pay into a plan that covers pregnancy, or why people who go to private schools should have to pay taxes for public schools, that's not going to be an easy sell.

They will want vouchers for private insurance, and the GOP will work to convince people that they don't have "a choice" unless they do.

Perhaps you have an idea on how to get over that hurdle?

There's also the problem that a majority of people polled favor a "Medicare For All" would allow them to keep their own private insurance while allowing "others" to buy into an expanded Medicare program or public options.

A recent poll from Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the point. It showed that 59 percent of Americans support “a national health-care plan, or Medicare-for-all, in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan.” Sounds pretty strong, until you see that 75 percent support a “national Medicare-for-all plan open to anyone who wants it but people who currently have other coverage could keep what they have.” The first proposal is single-payer if you understand it. The second very clearly isn’t single-payer.

[ehrnst]

3. "He's serving his big donor masters loyally," this author says about Tom Perez

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2018, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

in an article in the same magazine called "The Treachery of Tom Perez." He also bashed Kirsten Gillibrand, among other Democratic Leaders

http://theweek.com/authors/ryan-cooper

As well as Democratic leaders of color Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Deval Patrick

http://theweek.com/articles/715955/why-leftists-dont-trust-kamala-harris-cory-booker-deval-patrick (links provided not as an attempt to bash Democratic leaders, but to provide citations that illustrate a particular bias against Democrats)

I'd say this was more of an opinion piece by a writer with a particular emotional bias, than a researched article on health care proposals. Not to say that there isn't greed involved on anyone's part - this 32 year old, who is angry about his own health care coverage, seems to harbor mistrust of a huge number of progressive politicians and the "establishment" in general for being corrupt and in it for the money alone, and talking nothing but "garbage" to the exclusion of facts or even common sense. He's clearly emotional about the issue, and that doesn't make for clear eyed analysis.

The illustration is the first clue that he is more interested in promoting/defending Senator Sanders than he is in analyzing health care policy, the aims and people/orgs behind PAHCF, and Medicare for All specifically.

The medical industry — drug companies, insurance companies, medical providers, and others — has thus been gearing up to preserve the fat profits they enjoy under the horrendous status quo. They've formed a group called The Partnership for America's Health Care Future (PAHCF) to run a propaganda campaign against universal health care

He provides no evidence that they are trying to kill Universal Health Care, or kill support for it. And there is no evidence on their website of any "campaign against universal health care." It appears this author seems to be under the mistaken idea that the MFA, as laid out by Sanders, is the only thing that qualifies as a "universal health care," and anyone discussing alternatives it is "opposed" to universal health care.

Frankly, PAHCF may indeed be motivated by greed, but this article doesn't make that case. He doesn't do any real digging into PAHCF, who it is, or appears to have even visited their website - he doesn't even link to it, as would a good journalist. He just states they are doing this for $$ and to beat up on Bernie Sanders, then goes on a rant - yes, a valid rant - on the current status quo insurance system, as some sort of proof of of his statement that this group is trying to keep it that way.

Saying that Senator Sanders' "Medicare for All" would be better than what we have now doesn't "prove" that PAHCF (or the other policy analysts he cites who have pointed out the problems in MFA) are "promoting garbage" and want to keep the "status quo."

That's a false dillema.

But it'll probably going to get him as much publicity as his hit piece on Harris, Booker and Patrick:

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2017/08/08/the-unconscious-bias-of-sanders-and-some-of-his-supporters/

[George II]

6. Ryan Cooper seems to have an agenda, and it doesn't look like that agenda is....

...supporting the Democratic Party or Democrats.

[ehrnst]

7. Borderline conspiracy theory writing.

A healthy skepticism is one thing, but he's only 32, and I wouldn't be surprised if he goes full Pizzagate by the time he's 50.

[JHan]

18. "full pizzagate by the time he's 50"

damn..

[SkyDancer]

20. He hits both sides

Looking at the list of articles he's written here he seems very non partisan.

[ehrnst]

22. Bwahhhhhh!!!

He hates Democrats. But I guess that depends on what you see as "the other" side, doesn't it?



But please do keep on trying to defend him as "non-partisan," when he sees evil corporate overlords manipulating every politician, except for Bernie, who is being personally "attacked" by the "medical lobby," while Tom Perez "answers to his donor masters."

Nice try, but the fish aren't biting, Hon.

[George II]

5. Ryan Cooper? All he ever seems to do is bash the Democratic Party and Democrats.

I don't understand how the so-called "medical lobby" (is that something new?) can spread lies about something that hasn't advanced beyond the conceptual stage.

[SkyDancer]

21. No he goes after both sides

A list of the article's he's written is here

Some highlights;

America for sale

The miracle of the United States Postal Service

America in peril

How Trump voters are missing out on the Trump economy

The astounding prevalence of New Deal projects, in 1 eye-popping map

[ehrnst]

24. So what two "sides" are you referring to when you say "both sides?" (nt)

Anti-Republican and Anti-Democratic?

[procon]

8. But the increased volume of patients under Medicare-For-All

would offset any perceived loss of revenue with a huge influx of millions of newly insured. Plus all the increase in jobs for ancillary medical services, manufacturing, construction, etc. The greed is with the private insurance industry that would be the biggest losers, relegated to small niche markets like coverage for overseas travel, long term care, home health services, celebrity doctors and quack clinics, or private hospital suites with 1200 thread count Egyptian cotton sheets and catered meals, or doctors who do house calls, offering concierge coverage to the rich.

[ehrnst]

9. What is your source for these projections?

The size of the necessary taxes cannot yet be determined, since it would depend on the precise design of the new system (such as the benefits covered and the portion of those benefits paid through consumers’ premiums, deductibles, and copayments). But the failed attempt to establish a single-payer system in Vermont, perhaps the most progressive state in the union, gives a sense of the challenges ahead.

While there likely would be many “winners” under a new single-payer system, there no doubt would also be a significant number of people who perceive themselves as “losers.” The latter would become a very vocal and active oppositional force — probably more vocal than the “winners.”

Asking people to pay higher taxes for coverage they fear is inferior (and in a few cases is inferior) is a recipe for a backlash.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/9/8/16271888/health-care-single-payer-aca-democratic-agenda

I mean, I've listened to people talk about how closing Planned Parenthood will bring a new era of women not having abortions, and the government money that went to reimburse Planned Parenthood would cover the expenses for women to have the babies they would have aborted, as well as the adoption attorney fees. Women who don't get affordable contraception will simply not have sex as often, and STDS will actually become more scarce. They are convinced that it will work that way because conservatives tell them this.

Actual policy experts, however, will tell you that's not a likely scenario.

And actual policy experts have said that Medicare for All will cost more than it claims, and that it will disrupt health care delivery more than it claims will happen in an 8 year implementation period.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/sanders-single-payer-health-care-plan-effect-national-health-expenditures-and-federal-and-private-spending

But none of that has anything to do with the article in the OP, does it?

[procon]

10. WHO

"Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception."

The actual plans vary somewhat, but the goal is the same, providing healthcare for everyone. The US is held in the grip of capitalist greed, but we can't afford to continue under the current inefficient and dysfunctional for-profit system. Our population is changing, young people are no longer willing to accept the American myth that your socioeconomic status equates to your worthiness to live a healthy life, they want more from their government.

We can certainly come up with a viable plan (as your link to the Vox article agrees) just like any other modern nation did. Since we can't maintain the status quo on the per capita costs for health care here in the US, any plan that shifts healthcare in the direction of non-profit, universal coverage is a plus and whatever the US finally decides on, will be better for us all.

[ehrnst]

11. Nothing in that article supports the projections you made on funding and costs.

It's just a list of countries and the date they achieved their varying universal health care plans.

The actual plans vary somewhat, but the goal is the same, providing healthcare for everyone.

That is also the goal of the ACA, which is not single payer.

The US is held in the grip of capitalist greed, but we can't afford to continue under the current inefficient and dysfunctional for-profit system.

Most of the developed world uses a hybrid of public and private payors to achieve. To say that any plan that includes private payors for anything is unacceptable is ignoring what the rest of the world does for universal health care.

We can certainly come up with a viable plan (as your link to the Vox article agrees) just like any other modern nation did.

No other democratic developed nation with UHC is starting now, (and certainly no country as large and diverse as ours is has recently) and no other democratic developed nation started out 60-70 years ago with what they have now. Much like Social Security did not start out covering anywhere near what it does now. And those countries didn't have to upend a system that had been baked into the economy for 60 years to get started. We are looking at an enormous retrofit, with a population who is very used to another system - remember the howls when "you can keep your doctor" didn't pan out? If we had started in the 1940s, we might have what Europe has. Even Teddy Kennedy said that the biggest regret of his life was that he didn't compromise with Nixon on a universal health plan, because we might have something now that might come close to what Canada has. But he listened to others who demanded Single Payer or nothing! So we have nothing, except the ACA, which another start towards UHC, and is as close as we've ever come. And still the GOP was able to kneecap it. Incremental implementation is the only reason we still have any of the ACA.



Look, one can understandably go on and on singing the advantages of laying streets in a city out in a grid - it's easy to navigate, easy to figure out how far something is, first responders can get places faster - but if you want to retrofit the roads in an existing city into a grid layout, you aren't going to do it in eight years, and it's going to be expensive. And simply repeating lists of cities that love their grid layout doesn't solve how it's going to be paid for, how the disruption to traffic is going to be dealt with and what is going to happen to the houses and businesses on the winding streets that already there.

Any plan that shifts healthcare in the direction of non-profit, universal coverage is a plus and whatever the US finally decides on, will be better for us all.

Tell that to people who say that the Medicare For All plan is the only plan acceptable, and anyone who disagrees is a corporate shill - you know, like the author of the article in the OP.

[procon]

12. Clearly, you have an agenda.

I don't agree with your opinion. There's no point in throwing out pointless links and florid stats or quibbling over nuanced semantics just to argue with everyone who replied to this thread who doesn't agree with you.

Most people don't care about the sausage making in getting to universal healthcare, or whatever label that gets pasted on the box, its not as important as reaching that goal. All those other countries, who have far less wealth and resources than the US, managed to successfully provide a workable system of non-profit healthcare for their populations, so there is no excuse why the US can't achieve our own version.

[ehrnst]

13. So you back out of it with an accusation. Because you have an agenda,

anyone who disagrees with you must also.

I asked for sources for your cost projections. That's not a matter of opinion.

There's no point in throwing out pointless links and florid stats or quibbling over nuanced semantics just to argue with everyone who replied to this thread who doesn't agree with you.

And here we have someone desperately trying to dismiss and demean what I said as "quibbling over nuanced semantics just to argue." Speak for yourself. You couldn't back up your opinions, so you attack my posts that do as being just as baseless.

Most people don't care about the sausage making in getting to universal healthcare, or whatever label that gets pasted on the box, its not as important as reaching that goal.

You were the one who started the thread of how everything would work out in funding - no problem! This was you, remember?

But the increased volume of patients under Medicare-For-All would offset any perceived loss of revenue with a huge influx of millions of newly insured. Plus all the increase in jobs for ancillary medical services, manufacturing, construction, etc.

You can't provide a source for all that projection of costs... and now you want to backpedal and say "no one cares about how it will work!" Again - speak for yourself.

Look - just own the fact that it's something you want to be true, and want to believe. Don't pretend that you are going on anything but faith in a politicians' promises. It's become dogma, anyone who speaks up with questions is branded a heretic. Just like shutting down Planned Parenthood is on the Right.

All those other countries, who have far less wealth and resources than the US, managed to successfully provide a workable system of non-profit healthcare for their populations, so there is no excuse why the US can't achieve our own version.

I see you decided ignored this part of my response:

No other democratic developed nation with UHC is starting now, (and certainly no country as large and diverse as ours is has recently) and no other democratic developed nation started out 60-70 years ago with what they have now. Much like Social Security did not start out covering anywhere near what it does now. And those countries didn't have to upend a system that had been baked into the economy for 60 years to get started. We are looking at an enormous retrofit, with a population who is very used to another system - remember the howls when "you can keep your doctor" didn't pan out? If we had started in the 1940s, we might have what Europe has.

Those aren't excuses, those are realities. If facts burst your bubble, that's your issue. But think about how defensive and insulting you got when someone actually backed up their claims that didn't make you happy by referring to it as "throwing out pointless links and florid stats."

May I suggest the ignore feature? That way you won't be made upset by someone who questions your dogma with facts.

And by the way - I lived in the UK and loved my single payer health care, so no, destroying any chance of it here isn't an "agenda" I have.

[procon]

14. I responded civilly with a source.

You're not winning any converts by moving the goalposts and expanding your demands, yeah? I expect to hear Republicans make negative statements on universal healthcare, but I sure don't want to see that attitude at DU or find anyone who is unwilling to even try to find a solution. Instead of continuing to bully everyone on this thread, can you not follow your own advice and be first to make judicious use of that Ignore feature?

[ehrnst]

15. So, now I'm a "bully" and "against Universal Health Care...

You illustrate my point that people who don't understand Universal Health Care enough to differentiate between MFA and Universal Health Care are the ones getting angry at people who explain it to them.

You didn't respond with a source for your claims about the specifics of funding, you found a list of countries that have UHC. When I pointed that out, you quickly devolved into incivility and accused me of being "demanding." Projection?

You equate anyone who points out the obstacles to MFA of making "negative statements on universal health care." Which doesn't speak well for your understanding of what defines Universal Health Care.

When you need to accuse someone of sticking with the facts of "bullying everyone on this thread" you have truly lost your ability to discuss something rationally.

When you accuse anyone who disagrees with you about MFA of being "unwilling to even try to find a solution" you have turned the entire subject into dogma and a tribal litmus test. If you had bothered to calm down enough to read my posts, you would see that I'm very interested in a solution, and want it to be evidence based, and not a political tagline. Here it is again....

Most of the developed world uses a hybrid of public and private payors to achieve. To say that any plan that includes private payors for anything is unacceptable is ignoring what the rest of the world does for universal health care.

Health policy experts say that incremental expansion of the ACA is the most realistic way to get to universal health care. I am for anything that gets us there faster, because getting care to people matters more to me than fealty to a political dogma.

I simply asked you to back up the claims you made first - and you got so upset that you started accusing me of being "negative" about Universal Health Care... As I said, most other developed countries use private entities in partnership with government to provide UHC. Isn't that what you say you want to emulate? Or is your real agenda with adhering to a particular political dogma that simply makes private companies the source of all problems in health care despite what we see in most other developed countries? Because you really can't claim both. Not if you have the first clue about how health care policy works.

This is like trying to talk to a right winger about the actual consequences of closing down Planned Parenthood, or why "repeal and replace" votes during the Obama administration were political theater. I get accused of being "negative about preventing abortions" by them when I try to talk to them about holes in their beloved "solution," too, btw...

I expect to hear Republicans refuse to acknowledge that public policy experts know more than politicians, but I sure don't want to see that attitude at DU or find anyone who is unwilling to even try to listen to reason. You are the one talking about "conversion" not me.

Again - that ignore feature will protect you from that.

[lapucelle]

16. Ryan Cooper is conflating universal coverage with Medicare for All (HR 673).

Did this Ryan Cooper write the article or was it the actor?



http://www.ryanlouiscooper.com/p/about.html

[George II]

17. Sorry, but methinks this thread was a major fail.

[area51]

19. PNHP

has some information.

[ehrnst]

23. That's not the group he's talking about in the OP.

The group is PAHCF.

[ck4829]

25. Kick