It is well documented how much more cost effective a Medicare for All system would be in the aggregate. But do you want to know how much money per year a Medicare for All system would personally save you?
I'm 63. I'm healthy (whole food plant based, fit as a fiddle, don't smoke, drink or do drugs, no medications). We're well off. But even so. Something could go wrong. And now I'd be dealing with this.
I know a little about marketing/messaging. Who votes? Older people. Who will face these problems? Older people. Every older person, R or D, should be in favor of this. Because it makes sense.
There's so many messaging points to hit on. Like you work your whole life to "retire". But then you get sick. Then your coverage is denied. Or, the 20% bankrupts you. They'll take your house, file a lien against your estate, whatever they can. Why on earth would any sane person even risk this?
I'll tell you why:
1. They're brainwashed. They believe what Trumpers and Fox tells them.
2. They won't listen - because they view the issue as being aligned with Democrats -- who they believe are the anti-christ.
2A. Democrats have consistently failed over so many years (true) they've tuned them out. What Ralph and Thomas Frank talks about. This is great:
Obama spent years telling people they needed an education. What a mistake. We just paid a carpenter 65k over 4 months to remodel our home. His billing rate is $85/hour. That's good money. But we were lucky to find him. Because there's a lack of good trades people. The demand is there, but the supply is lacking. And yes, people will still pay for quality.
I've been looking for something to do. I started a Vote Boebert Out campaign, but I ran into the machine. And thinking about Boebert each day made me miserable. So I abandoned it.
But this is one issue that I think I can connect with people on and make a dent. Because it makes so much sense. No older person should be voting for anyone who isn't in favor of M4A. No one. If you can just get them in a room it's really easy to talk to them. Any objection they have can be easily solved.
I think I'm going to try. I live in a small town, Eagle, CO. We have a community center. I bet I can get a lot of people to show up.
Thanks Ralph and crew. I signed up for a 1 year subscription all because of the piece.
"We’re already spending more in public money than any other country spends in total. I like to say we’re already paying for universal healthcare, we’re just not getting it."
Yes!! I've been saying this for years, Americans are getting ripped off. We should demand universal health care without raising another huge tax paid slush fund, because we are already paying for it and then some. We should demand deep accounting and accountability for where the money is going.
The more things change the more they stay the same. So many crooks and charlatans on the dole in healthcare.So many people living so long that the money runs out before we croak. May sound heartless but it’s true.
The term ‘Medicare’ is used in a variety of ways during this show and I think the listeners might be left confused by this issue. With this in mind, I’d like to make a point. I’ll make the point in a quick way and in more detailed form.
Klassik’s quick analysis: Just as Medicare as we know it in the US is nationally funded, much-needed reforms for single-payer healthcare for all should, at the very least, be nationally funded. State-based single-payer healthcare reforms are going to be limited in their benefit to the public since even the wealthiest states are very constrained in their ability to spend compared to the national government and, thus, should not be pursued by progressives. In addition to being poor policy, Dr. Kahn’s description of state-funded Medicare For All, improved or not, is problematic naming because Medicare as we know is a national program, not a state program.
Klassik’s long-winded analysis: The RNRH staff is correct in giving healthcare reform as much coverage as they have given it in recent times. With each discussion, very salient points come to my mind and I think many of these are not-so-obvious points. We need to analyze these points deeper to understand how to create the most ideal national healthcare plan.
Steve’s question to Dr. Kahn during the wrap up segment, and the subsequent answer, brings up a very important point. I assumed during the ‘radio’ part of the show that Dr. Kahn was discussing a national healthcare reform strategy rather than a statewide one. After all, Medicare is a federal program, so why would Improved Medicare for All be a statewide one?
The obvious problem with state single-payer health insurance is that it only benefits people in the states who enact the reform. Less obvious, but critically important, is that no state, even California, can come even remotely close to funding heathcare reform the way the national government can. Any state wanting to offer health insurance would have to do so via some form of taxation. The national government is not limited in this way. I realize this is not well understood, but it needs to be understood. This must be a point of emphasis for the RNRH.
Anyway, a state-funded program is almost certainly going to require the public under it to have some kind of supplemental insurance, probably offered in privatized form, to make up for what state governments can’t fund, important stuff like medications, dental, vision, medical transportation, etc., and also so people have insurance if they travel out-of-state. This limits the freedoms from billing burdens that were discussed on the show and it also exposes the public to private insurance ripoffs. It also limits the reach of healthcare reform for lower-income residents, the self-employed, and so forth. State-funded programs also lack the scale that a national program can which can drive down medical costs via mass scale purchasing, or even production, of medical supplies, medications, and so forth. Also in terms of scale, having multiple administrative bodies administering health insurance across the various states is naturally going to be less efficient than having a single administrative body such as the federal government.
Single-payer healthcare can take many different forms. Some of these forms have been discussed briefly in various RNRH episodes. There is single-payer, single-provider healthcare where the nation’s clinics, hospitals, and doctors are essentially nationalized. Government controls a large part of the whole healthcare system. Before one says this is political unfeasible or ‘communism,’ very capitalistic Britain has such a system with the NHS and the very capitalistic US has a program for our veterans with the VA. ‘VA for All’ has been discussed by Mr. Nader on previous RNRH episodes. Perhaps a guest should be scheduled who could discuss the viability of such a program.
Canada has a system that is nationally funded, but provincially administered and, as far as I know, doctors are able to maintain their own practices. This system has the advantage of national funding and the national government mandates the provinces provide certain services. Still, there are variances in costs, policies, and services between the provinces. This leads to some different views on privatization. This may not be the best system overall, but it is miles and miles better than what could be achieved in the US with state-funded reforms.
Professor Bill Mitchell, Australian economist and expert on national government spending, wrote a blog post last March, "Single-payer health care should be funded by the federal government," where he outlines why US healthcare reform should be a national reform and not a state-level one. This is worthy reading as he is directly addressing US progressives: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=49460
21 grand a year even though I have SSDI that’s only 1,200 a month! I just want to go back to work and flourish my education and knowledge for diabetes and Seizures! I smoke marijuana for a certain strain. I just want education and technology and US the actual people to make the shift change. I also like Richard Wolff for economic standard co-op standard for work and relaxing to be Whole ☯️ I’m a Green Party right now but that’s because Bernie Sanders quit on all of us !😡🤬😳 Ac/Dc is one of the strains (18-1)ratio. Co-Op medical marijuana for US not PROFIT!
Dis- advantageous advantage free for Capitalism for the 95 private dis-advantage for the 1 percent that controls ALL OF US ( for the 99 to 1 percent Olagarkey ,Corporate,Corrupt,1 percent that’s bought our DEMOCRACY for even living in this S*1T for the scrap’s at the end of the pie that’s Pentagon 21 trillion running unanswered Pentagon For 22 years and running for 160 billion corrupt Zelinsky president that’s B- actor that’s in the White House right next to Pelosi still being in there! Nancy your husband is a gay coke stock broker with a whole other situation! That’s a part of the story! Lol😳🫵🤌💩
Hi all! Can’t wait to listen as always. I have a question following up on Mr. Nader’s collumn this week. Which daily Print Newspaper does Ralph recommended for staying with the national news if their local one is insufficient?
This show was fabulous. One of the best.
I'm 63. I'm healthy (whole food plant based, fit as a fiddle, don't smoke, drink or do drugs, no medications). We're well off. But even so. Something could go wrong. And now I'd be dealing with this.
I know a little about marketing/messaging. Who votes? Older people. Who will face these problems? Older people. Every older person, R or D, should be in favor of this. Because it makes sense.
There's so many messaging points to hit on. Like you work your whole life to "retire". But then you get sick. Then your coverage is denied. Or, the 20% bankrupts you. They'll take your house, file a lien against your estate, whatever they can. Why on earth would any sane person even risk this?
I'll tell you why:
1. They're brainwashed. They believe what Trumpers and Fox tells them.
2. They won't listen - because they view the issue as being aligned with Democrats -- who they believe are the anti-christ.
2A. Democrats have consistently failed over so many years (true) they've tuned them out. What Ralph and Thomas Frank talks about. This is great:
https://youtu.be/gMiT5B-pHqY
Obama spent years telling people they needed an education. What a mistake. We just paid a carpenter 65k over 4 months to remodel our home. His billing rate is $85/hour. That's good money. But we were lucky to find him. Because there's a lack of good trades people. The demand is there, but the supply is lacking. And yes, people will still pay for quality.
I've been looking for something to do. I started a Vote Boebert Out campaign, but I ran into the machine. And thinking about Boebert each day made me miserable. So I abandoned it.
But this is one issue that I think I can connect with people on and make a dent. Because it makes so much sense. No older person should be voting for anyone who isn't in favor of M4A. No one. If you can just get them in a room it's really easy to talk to them. Any objection they have can be easily solved.
I think I'm going to try. I live in a small town, Eagle, CO. We have a community center. I bet I can get a lot of people to show up.
Thanks Ralph and crew. I signed up for a 1 year subscription all because of the piece.
"We’re already spending more in public money than any other country spends in total. I like to say we’re already paying for universal healthcare, we’re just not getting it."
Yes!! I've been saying this for years, Americans are getting ripped off. We should demand universal health care without raising another huge tax paid slush fund, because we are already paying for it and then some. We should demand deep accounting and accountability for where the money is going.
The more things change the more they stay the same. So many crooks and charlatans on the dole in healthcare.So many people living so long that the money runs out before we croak. May sound heartless but it’s true.
The term ‘Medicare’ is used in a variety of ways during this show and I think the listeners might be left confused by this issue. With this in mind, I’d like to make a point. I’ll make the point in a quick way and in more detailed form.
Klassik’s quick analysis: Just as Medicare as we know it in the US is nationally funded, much-needed reforms for single-payer healthcare for all should, at the very least, be nationally funded. State-based single-payer healthcare reforms are going to be limited in their benefit to the public since even the wealthiest states are very constrained in their ability to spend compared to the national government and, thus, should not be pursued by progressives. In addition to being poor policy, Dr. Kahn’s description of state-funded Medicare For All, improved or not, is problematic naming because Medicare as we know is a national program, not a state program.
Klassik’s long-winded analysis: The RNRH staff is correct in giving healthcare reform as much coverage as they have given it in recent times. With each discussion, very salient points come to my mind and I think many of these are not-so-obvious points. We need to analyze these points deeper to understand how to create the most ideal national healthcare plan.
Steve’s question to Dr. Kahn during the wrap up segment, and the subsequent answer, brings up a very important point. I assumed during the ‘radio’ part of the show that Dr. Kahn was discussing a national healthcare reform strategy rather than a statewide one. After all, Medicare is a federal program, so why would Improved Medicare for All be a statewide one?
The obvious problem with state single-payer health insurance is that it only benefits people in the states who enact the reform. Less obvious, but critically important, is that no state, even California, can come even remotely close to funding heathcare reform the way the national government can. Any state wanting to offer health insurance would have to do so via some form of taxation. The national government is not limited in this way. I realize this is not well understood, but it needs to be understood. This must be a point of emphasis for the RNRH.
Anyway, a state-funded program is almost certainly going to require the public under it to have some kind of supplemental insurance, probably offered in privatized form, to make up for what state governments can’t fund, important stuff like medications, dental, vision, medical transportation, etc., and also so people have insurance if they travel out-of-state. This limits the freedoms from billing burdens that were discussed on the show and it also exposes the public to private insurance ripoffs. It also limits the reach of healthcare reform for lower-income residents, the self-employed, and so forth. State-funded programs also lack the scale that a national program can which can drive down medical costs via mass scale purchasing, or even production, of medical supplies, medications, and so forth. Also in terms of scale, having multiple administrative bodies administering health insurance across the various states is naturally going to be less efficient than having a single administrative body such as the federal government.
Single-payer healthcare can take many different forms. Some of these forms have been discussed briefly in various RNRH episodes. There is single-payer, single-provider healthcare where the nation’s clinics, hospitals, and doctors are essentially nationalized. Government controls a large part of the whole healthcare system. Before one says this is political unfeasible or ‘communism,’ very capitalistic Britain has such a system with the NHS and the very capitalistic US has a program for our veterans with the VA. ‘VA for All’ has been discussed by Mr. Nader on previous RNRH episodes. Perhaps a guest should be scheduled who could discuss the viability of such a program.
Canada has a system that is nationally funded, but provincially administered and, as far as I know, doctors are able to maintain their own practices. This system has the advantage of national funding and the national government mandates the provinces provide certain services. Still, there are variances in costs, policies, and services between the provinces. This leads to some different views on privatization. This may not be the best system overall, but it is miles and miles better than what could be achieved in the US with state-funded reforms.
Professor Bill Mitchell, Australian economist and expert on national government spending, wrote a blog post last March, "Single-payer health care should be funded by the federal government," where he outlines why US healthcare reform should be a national reform and not a state-level one. This is worthy reading as he is directly addressing US progressives: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=49460
21 grand a year even though I have SSDI that’s only 1,200 a month! I just want to go back to work and flourish my education and knowledge for diabetes and Seizures! I smoke marijuana for a certain strain. I just want education and technology and US the actual people to make the shift change. I also like Richard Wolff for economic standard co-op standard for work and relaxing to be Whole ☯️ I’m a Green Party right now but that’s because Bernie Sanders quit on all of us !😡🤬😳 Ac/Dc is one of the strains (18-1)ratio. Co-Op medical marijuana for US not PROFIT!
Dis- advantageous advantage free for Capitalism for the 95 private dis-advantage for the 1 percent that controls ALL OF US ( for the 99 to 1 percent Olagarkey ,Corporate,Corrupt,1 percent that’s bought our DEMOCRACY for even living in this S*1T for the scrap’s at the end of the pie that’s Pentagon 21 trillion running unanswered Pentagon For 22 years and running for 160 billion corrupt Zelinsky president that’s B- actor that’s in the White House right next to Pelosi still being in there! Nancy your husband is a gay coke stock broker with a whole other situation! That’s a part of the story! Lol😳🫵🤌💩
Hi all! Can’t wait to listen as always. I have a question following up on Mr. Nader’s collumn this week. Which daily Print Newspaper does Ralph recommended for staying with the national news if their local one is insufficient?
I’m also happy for any recommendations for anybody who reads this. It seems like Ralph prefers the Washington Post so it might be time to switch over.