Liberal Forum

It would appear that Medicare for all would save America approximately 5 trillion dollars over 9 years. This compared to our current system. Awesome! Ok, but there is one thing being left out, quality. Many studies have rigorously studied the financial component. Most have come to a consensus that Medicare for all would cost significantly less than the status quo. In contrast, I don't see a lot of studies addressing how the quality of healthcare will change, if it does at all. Would it be better? Worse? No change? Quality is a component that we don't want to take lightly when it comes to our health. Obviously, the cost is important, but so is good healthcare, not just affordable healthcare. However, Medicare for All would:

• Provide guaranteed health care to everyone;

But what about the quality?

• Provide access to home and community-based care for all who need it;

But what about the quality?

• Guarantee coverage for dental, vision and hearing services;

But what about the quality? 

• End medical debt and medical bankruptcies;

 

But what about the quality?

• Reduce administrative waste by $500 billion per year;

 

But what about the quality?

End price gouging by pharmaceutical companies; 

But what about the quality? 

• Put an end to corporations profiting off the sick.

But what about the quality?

• A recent study by Yale epidemiologists found that Medicare for All would save around 68,000 lives a year while reducing U.S. health care spending by around 13%, or $450 billion a year.
• Medicare for All spending would be approximately $37.8 trillion between 2017 and 2026, according to a study by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. That amounts to about $5 trillion in savings over that time. These savings would come from reducing administrative costs and allowing the government to negotiate prescription drug prices.
• Other studies by think tanks and government agencies have analyzed single-payer proposals at the state and federal levels. Most found Medicare for All would reduce our total health care spending.
• Even a study by the Koch-funded Mercatus Center found that Medicare for All would save around $2 trillion over a 10-year period.

https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check ... r-savings/

The countries that have universal healthcare are 90%+ racially homogenous .

It can't work in the US

SJConspirator » 01 Aug 2022, 7:14 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:14 pm

The countries that have universal healthcare are 90%+ racially homogenous .

It can't work in the US

I don't think it's about the race, I used to, but I believe a bigger factor would be lifestyle. Americans are notoriously obese. Generally speaking, most Americans are not healthy. 

Vegas » 01 Aug 2022, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:11 pm

It would appear that Medicare for all would save America approximately 5 trillion dollars over 9 years. This compared to our current system. Awesome! Ok, but there is one thing being left out, quality. Many studies have rigorously studied the financial component. Most have come to a consensus that Medicare for all would cost significantly less than the status quo. In contrast, I don't see a lot of studies addressing how the quality of healthcare will change, if it does at all. Would it be better? Worse? No change? Quality is a component that we don't want to take lightly when it comes to our health. Obviously, the cost is important, but so is good healthcare, not just affordable healthcare. However, Medicare for All would:

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality? 

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality? 

But what about the quality?

https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check ... r-savings/

the biggest issue with quality is going to be the fact that there is little meritocracy in the school or job hiring. 

Vegas » 01 Aug 2022, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:17 pm

I don't think it's about the race, I used to, but I believe a bigger factor would be lifestyle. Americans are notoriously obese. Generally speaking, most Americans are not healthy.

the issue with the diversity is that ordinary people won't WANT to pay for health care of some group that they consider am adversary...perhaps even an existential threat.

FOS » 01 Aug 2022, 7:21 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:21 pm

the biggest issue with quality is going to be the fact that there is little meritocracy in the school or job hiring.

Maybe in Nevada because we suck at everything. However, there are some good med schools with great employee prospects in every other state except us. 

Vegas » 01 Aug 2022, 7:25 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:25 pm

Maybe in Nevada because we suck at everything. However, there are some good med schools with great employee prospects in every other state except us.

Lol in Georgia we have doctors like this 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to- ... suits-say/

FOS » 01 Aug 2022, 7:28 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:28 pm

Lol in Georgia we have doctors like this 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to- ... suits-say/

  What a moron. 

Vegas » 01 Aug 2022, 7:29 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:29 pm

  What a moron.

Well this is what happens to a country obsessed with affirmative action
 

Vegas » 01 Aug 2022, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:17 pm

I don't think it's about the race, I used to, but I believe a bigger factor would be lifestyle. Americans are notoriously obese. Generally speaking, most Americans are not healthy.

 USA men are not getting pregnant, they are swelling up due to toxic food, water and medical treatments that eliminates fertility and reduces testosterone, etc. The medical system has become a cash for death deal over the last two years, kangaroo courts have given the medical worker class-group a title of nobility while the starving feudal serf peasant has no speech or defense. A scientific observation comparison of vaccinated and non vaccinated individuals will not be allowed in a USA court.

USA natives were found to be living to the age of 90 in a healthy condition before a European doctor ever stepped foot in the new world.

Hey, where are those trains going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgMyvMq94YA

Vegas » 01 Aug 2022, 7:11 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Aug 2022, 7:11 pm

It would appear that Medicare for all would save America approximately 5 trillion dollars over 9 years. This compared to our current system. Awesome! Ok, but there is one thing being left out, quality. Many studies have rigorously studied the financial component. Most have come to a consensus that Medicare for all would cost significantly less than the status quo. In contrast, I don't see a lot of studies addressing how the quality of healthcare will change, if it does at all. Would it be better? Worse? No change? Quality is a component that we don't want to take lightly when it comes to our health. Obviously, the cost is important, but so is good healthcare, not just affordable healthcare. However, Medicare for All would:

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality? 

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality?

But what about the quality? 

But what about the quality?

https://www.citizen.org/news/fact-check ... r-savings/

10 questions.

Not a single original thought.
 

Blackvegetable » 02 Aug 2022, 6:39 am » wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2022, 6:39 am

10 questions.

Not a single original thought.

It's the same question, so that's one, not ten. 

And did you happen to read the first paragraph for my original thoughts? Of course not, you don't read anything.

Vegas » 02 Aug 2022, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

02 Aug 2022, 8:49 am

It's the same question, so that's one, not ten. 

And did you happen to read the first paragraph for my original thoughts? Of course not, you don't read anything.

Post "the original thought".