General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho do you blame for no universal health care in the first place? I blame all the people against it.
Why do we need private insurance? Why do we even need government insurance? It's the "middleman" we don't need.
Why not across -the-board pay for healthcare in taxes?
Yeah, I know all the arguments pro and con.
Irish_Dem
(59,719 posts)And the billionaires want a legal way to loot and pillage the US health care system.
And legally torture and kill people.
JT45242
(2,994 posts)We had salary limits placed to help the war effort. So companies offered health care to lure and keep the best workers.
Post WW2, Europe was ravaged by the war and rebuilt from rubble with a single payer system as they rebuilt hospitals and all other health from the rubble.
I blame the lobbying and buying off of politicians to keep health insurance a for profit industry.
I blame the sexism that derailed Clinton attempt because of 'uppity Hillary'.
I blame the lobbyists and Lieberman for tanking (after cashing the checks) buying into Medicare early which was the first logical step to one payer system. They could keep lowering the age until everyone is covered.
I blame citizens united which allowed those insurance companies to slander Obamacare because it threatened their profits.
My wife says insurance companies, all of them health, auto, and home, are the root cause of must of Americans problems. They privatize profits and socialize losses and discriminate based on red lines, poor parts of town, etc.
But mostly I blame greed and politicians willing to take bribes, both the legal and illegal kind to preserve the billionaire overlords.
CurtEastPoint
(19,229 posts)CrispyQ
(38,590 posts)Our electoral process has been turned into an obscene industry of its own & the people who can change it are some of its biggest beneficiaries. So....
dugog55
(307 posts)When I retired at 60 years old, I was allowed to stay on the company plan until I received Medicare at 65. The Company "supposedly" was paying $18k of the plan, and I had to pay the remainder which was $600 month. So that "B" level plan cost $26K a year. This was in 2014. So if the average working family now is paying just $20K for a plan while their income is the average $70K, that health plan is costing them almost 25% of their salary. But, if we had national health insurance and had to tax everyone 7-10% to cover it, they would go crazy having to pay that tax.
Face it, too many people in this country are just plain stupid. There is no fix for this. They are lied to and believe it by the Right, and the will cut off their nose to spite their face.
And I hated to use an "average" salary figure, as I am sure that the high wage earners tilt the average up a lot more than half the country actually earns. I would like to see and average salary after deleting the top 5% of earners. I think it would be stunningly low.
surfered
(3,742 posts)....because not all Americans have healthcare. An American's life expectancy can be as much as 20 years less depending on their race, income level, and geographic location.
Submariner
(12,715 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 5, 2024, 11:51 AM - Edit history (1)
were very very successful in helping the health insurance industry and big pharma stick to us for decades.
Joe Lieberman (another fake friend to McCain like Graham), a DINO, was very instrumental in helping squash any insurance initiative that would expand medical care or save in medical expenses.
Orrin Hatch was in big Pharma's pockets for decades, and is famous for pushing the very expensive prescription 'donut hole' on us.
A lot of blame goes to those two bribe takers.
Emile
(30,797 posts)when they passed the ACA.
Keepthesoulalive
(811 posts)We have the best healthcare in the world.
We dont need Obamacare.
I can negotiate my hospital bills.
The myth of the self reliant man.
JI7
(90,892 posts)randr
(12,498 posts)The Pharmacy industry controls all medical procedures. They run a diagnostic and follow the chart to the recommended drug. Only way out is private insurance or pay out of pocket, which is what the rich do. I have a wealthy friend who had to treat a broken bone. He negotiated with the hospital and paid a fraction of the costs that would have been billed to an insurer by offering cash.
question everything
(49,086 posts)There was someone from Nebraska that demanded something; it was named after him.
But I was really upset with the one from Louisiana who said that businesses opposed it. I could not believe it. One would have thought that businesses would have loved to get out of providing health insurance. Negotiating with many providers every year.
Emile
(30,797 posts)us from having affordable and better healthcare.
Silent Type
(7,334 posts)to pay for the new system. And there is no guarantee the tax will be less than what they are paying now.
In other words, guarantee businesses -- including small businesses -- that they won't be taxed, or taxed minimally, and you'd see plenty of support.
kirby
(4,491 posts)Him publicly saying he would not support the bill if it included a public option eventually got it removed.
Basso8vb
(458 posts)SheltieLover
(60,286 posts)Same as every other civilized dynamic we are deprived of.
NameAlreadyTaken
(1,646 posts)Kaleva
(38,541 posts)I'm unaware of demonstrations in favor of it. Nor am I aware of people donating money to organizations promoting universal health care. Do any such organizations even exist?
Emile
(30,797 posts)and represent us?
Silent Type
(7,334 posts)Medicare at local level. Until more people/voters are willing to support universal healthcare, nothing will happen without private insurance involved. Definitely think we'd be better off without private insurance involved, but also know that it won't happen.
Gallop Poll 2023
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A 57% majority of U.S. adults believe that the federal government should ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage. Yet nearly as many, 53%, prefer that the U.S. healthcare system be based on private insurance rather than run by the government. These findings are in line with recent attitudes about the governments involvement in the healthcare system, which have been relatively steady since 2015.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/468401/majority-say-gov-ensure-healthcare.aspx
Every major change to our so-called healthcare system in last 30 years has involved private insurers-- Part C under Clinton, ACA/Obamacare, Part D drug plans, Medicaid is now delivered primarily through private insurers. Don't think we'll get anywhere bucking private health insurers involvement.
MaineBlueBear
(110 posts)That's who.
ProudMNDemocrat
(19,174 posts)that we all would have to pay in order to cover Universal Health care as in Europe, Scandanavia, Asia, and other countries.
Or for any Democratic Socialist programs such as Child care, paid vacations, parental or Medical leave, paid for Education up to Public University, etc. Which is why there are few if any from those countries wanting to emigrate to the US and then have to start all over again.
Ping Tung
(1,431 posts)Somebody will get free health care!!!
Voltaire2
(14,878 posts)to vote against their own self interest and for the interests of the wealthy people who control the economy and the propaganda system. The techniques they use are the same advertising techniques they use to persuade us to buy the ever increasing flood of commodities they produce.
prodigitalson
(2,953 posts)Think. Again.
(19,091 posts)dawg
(10,775 posts)their hospitals might be integrated and that blacks might receive the same level of care as whites.
Think. Again.
(19,091 posts)pandr32
(12,277 posts)...to keep private insurers in business.
UpInArms
(51,908 posts)and the transition under GHWB to PPOs and healthcare corporations
Edited to add
https://www.nursing.upenn.edu/nhhc/nurses-institutions-caring/history-of-hospitals/
Community hospitals also offered more comprehensive and complex services such as open heart surgery, radioisotope procedures, social work services, and in-house psychiatric facilities. [18] The growth of these hospitals, along with the advent of new treatments and new technologies, contributed to escalating in-patient hospital costs, leading the federal government to impose wage and price controls on hospitals in 1971. Indeed, the years after 1965 and the passage of Medicare and Medicaid were pivotal for everyone in health care because of increased government regulation. Medicare incorporated a prospective payment system in 1983, with federal programs paying a preset amount for a specific diagnosis in the form of Diagnostic Related Groups, or DRGs. [19] As third party payers gained power and status, DRGs radically changed Medicare reimbursements. They also considerably altered hospital decisions, with a focus changing toward greater efficiency. [20]
The 1980s also witnessed the growth of for-profit hospital networks, resulting in increased vulnerability of smaller not-for-profit institutions. More than 600 community hospitals closed. [21] It was at this time that both for-profit and not-for-profit institutions began forming larger hospital systems, which were significant changes in the voluntary hospital arena. A system was a corporate entity that owned or operated more than one hospital. This also has come about with the advent of DRGs as single health care facilities seek to affiliate to cut down on duplication of costs.
Greybnk48
(10,439 posts)The Republicans attacked him constantly, terrified that their Health Insurance Company donors would stop the flow of cash if they didn't. Kennedy was vilified and trashed constantly, primarily because providing healthcare to all Americans was his baby.
DJ Synikus Makisimus
(800 posts)take contributions from the medical-pharma-insurance industry. The industry probably also contributes mightily to dark money groups. We don't usually know the details of who and how much because all that is a secret unless someone is a social media gadfly or something.* Medical-pharma-insurance is one of the most profitable sectors in the country. It's not for nothing that medical care in the U.S. is the most expensive in the world.
You don't get richer by nationalizing profitable business and removing the profit from the equation. And so not rich people pay and pay and pay, and the economic elite make bank. Most politicians from all two parties are complicit at some level or another, and remember that democratic socialism is evil because it seeks to remove profit from critical industries. Remember who AIPAC and other donor groups of the super-wealthy have been targeting lately? Uh-huh.
Despite numerous rivalries, rich people and their wannabes tend to act in concert on their shared interests. The rest of us don't, largely because of the efficient propaganda machine owned by the elite. Been that way since 1776 and isn't getting noticeably better. The purpose of a liberal democracy is to protect the economic elite (as opposed to the hereditary landed nobility) and grow the economy, i.e., to make the richest richer. I'm not saying "trash it;" I'm saying we could recognize it for what it is, then act in our shared interests for a change. But probably not.
==============================================
*not to pick on her, but for an example see Chelsea Clinton's much-publicized investment forays into medical services providers and her public bashings of Medicare-for-all plans. GIYF. She''s not an elected politician, but is representative of her social class.
moondust
(20,516 posts)If "big gubment" provides a service like health care, capitalist predators may have a hard time making a fortune off it.
I remember decades ago it looked to me like the GQP was doing all they could to keep their voters from finding out how other countries did things like universal health care, public transportation (trains), etc. Anything "big gubment" does is "evil komyunizum!"
karynnj
(60,014 posts)I think it may be the difference between us and all other first world countries.
The fact that decades ago, employer provided health insurance which the tax law does not tax as income made giving healthcare worth more than spending the same amount in additional salary. This is why companies agreed with unions to provide it. Remember 2008 when many people, even those in favor of ACA, were concerned the bill could lead to them "losing" their private healthcare. This because many believed - based on no facts at all - that public health insurance would be inferior to private. Those on Medicare know better.