richard-crudenrichard-cruden

I'm interested in meaningful discussion

I have been active in government affairs for more than a decade; I hold a Bachelor’s degree in History and Political Science. I am particularly interested in foreign affairs and global leaders’ motivations, I have spent a lot of time studying the links and relationships between past and current leaders to better understand this.

Obama's Medicare for all is a rotten deal for most

Drop file here to send
Former President Barack Obama made a rather big splash last week, taking on a high-profile electoral role for the first time since leaving the White House, and delivering a hard-hitting speech at the University of Illinois. There was one line from his remarks, however, that continues to linger.

“Democrats aren’t just running on good, old ideas, like a higher minimum wage,” Obama said, “they’re running on good new ideas, like Medicare-for-all, giving workers seats on corporate boards, reversing the most egregious corporate tax cuts to make sure college students graduate debt free.” http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-obamas-medicare-all-endorsement-means-and-what-it-doesnt
This discussion is set to be archived. That means the discussions lasts just a few days, while people can comment. After that no one can comment but the discussion can still be viewed
richard-cruden
richard-cruden followed this discussion
Host
Admin
Firstly, Medicare for all is not a “good new idea.” It’s been around for decades under many guises, including “single-payer health insurance” and “a public option.” However, Obama was correct in saying this was a strong political issue for Democrats as Republicans persist in their efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and cruelly leave millions of Americans uninsured. More importantly, his highlighting Medicare for all represents the highest-profile political endorsement to date of a reform that finally would allow Americans to enjoy the benefits of an insurance system that provides universal, affordable coverage in almost all other developed countries.
1 y
Host
Admin
What do you think of Obama endorsing Medicare for All?
1 y
elzaan-steyn
elzaan-steyn followed this discussion
Host
Admin
President Obama’s endorsement is significant because it acknowledges that we still have important steps to take to guarantee universal healthcare in the U.S
1 y
Host
Admin
I'm all for it! As more baby boomers become eligible for Medicare, they understand that, for the first time in their lives, they have insurance that can’t be taken away from them. And they like having that security.
1 y
Host
Admin
Of course he endorses it, it is one of the pillars to him getting elected to the presidency. He won't be affected by it, but he thinks it will be good for the rest of us!
1 y
Host
Admin
It's a great move. If we do get universal healthcare, then your insurance premiums go away. Yes, we will pay more in taxes, but typically far less than that premium for coverage many of us cannot afford to use. Healthcare is a human right. No one should die because they are only considered human if they have money.
1 y
Host
Admin
It's a great move. If we do get universal healthcare, then your insurance premiums go away. Yes, we will pay more in taxes, but typically far less than that premium for coverage many of us cannot afford to use. Healthcare is a human right. No one should die because they are only considered human if they have money.
Agreed. I'm also for it. As a behavioral therapist, I am tired of having to walk away from clients that desperately need my services because parents cannot afford the insurance.
1 y
Host
Admin
I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I feel like Obama's change of heart is too little, too late. Would have been nice if he had embraced Medicare for All in 2009–2010 - a time when he was actually in a position to push for universal healthcare, since he had momentum and the Republicans were in disarray - rather than now.
1 y
Host
Admin
What a sudden change, I seem to remember that in 2009 Obama specifically disavowed any intention of nationalizing the health-care industry.
1 y
Host
Admin
Theoretically, it could work. However, there are so many barriers that it probably won’t happen in the absence of a dictatorship
1 y
Host
Admin
Would it work or is it the right thing to do? Just because some people think it should be done, doesn’t make it a good idea.
1 y
Host
Admin
It is not a “single public insurer-payor” but a “streamlined autonomous claims and payment process”. When a doctor’s office now has hundreds of policy-specific claims and authorization procedures, if all insurers (public and private) were told they had to use only a few possible policy and claims procedures (i.e. not one but say a dozen types of policies) HANDLED by a publicly/private funded autonomous organization, it would steam-line both payment processing/billing but also improve data analysis.
Edited
1 y
Host
Admin
With the existing Medicare system the government pays for about 80% of all “major medical” expenses. It does not include prescriptions, dental, hearing or vision. For all of these services you must buy additional health insurance.
1 y
10 more people followed this discussion
Host
Admin
It’s not reasonable to think that complete, unrestricted healthcare is a human right. It’s a noble goal, to be sure, but no one is granted such a right. To impose it on the citizens of the USA will cause a host of unintended consequences that people can hardly imagine.
1 y
Host
Admin
The better solution, from my point of view, is to keep our current social safety nets in place, abolish the regulations that allow big pharma to have a strangle hold on healthcare, and remove the regulations and barriers to health insurance competition and health innovation, such as telemedicine.
1 y