'Dead Wrong': Sanders Rebukes Starbucks Chairman's False Claim About Medicare For All

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) strongly pushed back against Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz's argument—heard for years from centrist Democrats and Republicans, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary—that a Medicare for All system would be prohibitively expensive for the United States and is not a "realistic" proposal.
"I think his comment is dead wrong," Sanders told Chris Cuomo on CNN Thursday night. "You have a guy who thinks that the United States apparently should remain the only major country on earth not to guarantee healthcare to all people."

To read more:

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/08/dead-wrong-sanders-rebukes-starbucks-chairmans-false-claim-about-medicare-all?utm_

In spite of the real world evidence that single payer is cheaper, and works better than the US system of profitized health care, there is still bi-partisan agreement on the part of some politicians that the US system is somehow better, or savable.

It is not. It is a broken system that was designed to allow the 1% tp monetize healthcare for their own benefit.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

1. I bet Howard Schultz doesn't have 500 different managers negotiating for the same product...

... from 500 suppliers with no ability to use their buying power to coordinate and reduce costs.

I bet he doesn’t willingly pay two and a half times more for a product other companies are acquiring for a fraction of the cost.

I bet he doesn’t let individual stores go bankrupt when they can’t negotiate or pay for supplies during a slow time.


But he wants that for us. Fucking jag off.

[guillaumeb]

2. Single payer is cheaper.

And that is fact, but those who oppose single payer are deceiving people with an argument about higher taxes while ignoring the fact that premiums will fall much more than taxes will rise.

[leftstreet]

5. +1

What an excellent comparison

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

27. Seriously! Has ZERO chance of capturing the party's nomination.

[Hoyt]

3. Theoretically single payer is cheaper. But there is a reason Vermont, Colorado and California

legislators gave up quickly when they saw how much taxes would have to increase. I get that we are already paying for it, but legislators know how people are going to react when the numbers are presented, and the lying opposition spins the numbers and impact.

A Public Option is more palatable to more people right now. If it is true that Medicare Option is better, which I think it is, people will gravitate toward it quickly.

[Wellstone ruled]

4. Your approch is the best

in the short run. Best way to implement Single Payer is,it has to be done stages. To avoid the Tax Shock,the Plan has to take make adjustments for the displacement of the Tens of Thousands of Private Insurance people. There was a Democratic Party Plan that moves our Nation into Single Payer over a period of 3-5 years by incorporating the Private Sector workers into a Public owned Health Care Industry.

As long as the Mega Rich can make a buck of the backs of sick people,it is not going to change.

[guillaumeb]

8. Single payer would be cheaper,

but it requires universal application among all 50 states for maximum efficiency.

[Hoyt]

9. Only if we are willing to transform the system, limit high cost butlow outcome care, remove wasteful

profit from the system, etc. I’m not sure the system or potential patients are ready for what will be necessary to make it significantly cheaper.

[guillaumeb]

11. Patients are more than ready.

Those who profit from the US system are not ready to give up the profits.

[Hoyt]

16. That's true, but patients here will gripe to hell the first time they are

told a certain drug is not covered because it is too expensive, or treatments seldom work, etc. I get people who haven’t had good healthcare will be thankful. But many others won’t.

There was a thread here last week about maybe having Medicare-for-all. The very first post, and many more, were we have to add dental, eye, hearing aids, etc. Christ, we can’t even get basic healthcare for everyone, but people start piling on more stuff (neeeded for sure, but not while trying to get it off the ground in this environment).

People are too stupid to realize we need this, even with sacrifices to make it work.

[Hortensis]

12. None of the planet's best healthcare is single payer

alone. The best systems that provide their citizens with the best healthcare overall are all hybrid.

Medicare, for instance, has never matched the VA for overall excellence -- when run properly without Republican efforts to destroy it, and it'd be a genuine tragedy if it were sacrificed on the altar of ideological rigidity.

[guillaumeb]

13. The VA is socialized medicine.

And the US is ranked 37th overall, in spite of spending far more for far less.

Medicare is far more efficient, even after GOP efforts to weaken it, so Medicare for all could be far cheaper that the current system.

[Hortensis]

14. Yes, it is. And, no, Medicare is neither far more efficient

or less expensive, shocking claims, btw. I'm on Medicare now and have to purchase three supplementary policies -- that's 6 for the two of us -- to make sure uncovered expenses don't put us hopelessly in debt.

I have never met a vet who wanted to lose his or her VA insurance. Quite the contrary.

[guillaumeb]

15. Medicare has been modified by the GOP.

Those supplemental expenses, and what they cover, were deliberately designed into the program by the GOP to insure a continued role for the private insurance market. They are design flaws.

So yes, Medicare could be far more efficient if, as one example, the program were allowed to negotiate drug prices. But Bush Jr. signed a GOP Medicare drug program that does not allow for negotiation.

[Hoyt]

17. Actually, those insurance companies that administer the drug coverage can and do negotiate drug

prices. To effectively negotiate drug prices, we have to be willing to say, “No, the system cannot afford that drug.” Government officials don’t have the guts to do that because the first time they did, they’d be crucified.

[guillaumeb]

18. Medicare Advantage, so named, is not Medicare.

and the coverage gaps were deliberately designed into the Medicare program to allow for private insurers to profit at the expense of seniors.

[Hoyt]

19. I think the coverage gaps were to save government cost and control utilization.

Medicare was designed like health plans at the time which used deductibles and coinsurance to reduce outlay directly, and “control” utilization indirectly by forcing patients to pay a portion. Fortunately, the extremely poor, could get Medicaid to cover coinsurance and deductibles.

I agree that coinsurance and deductibles provided private insurers a way to sell supplemental policies, but the system wasn’t designed for that purpose. There’s a difference.

[guillaumeb]

20. Medicare Advantage has no place in historical Medicare.

Other than to provide private insurers an opportunity to skim off dollars for the 1%.

[Hoyt]

25. Having been on a Medicare Advantage plan before I went back to work, disagree completely as do

the 30% or so of Medicare beneficiaries who can get traditional Medicare coverage, a supplemental policy, a drug policy, coordinated, care, etc., for a premium much less than what you'd pay if you stayed in traditional Medicare.

You do give up selection of any doctor who takes Medicare, but you pick up coordinated care in cases like Kaiser Permanente. That's what I had, and I really liked it and saved at least $150 a month. I'm fine with a plan like Kaiser telling me where and who to go to for specialized care. Too many Americans would grouse about that. And the bigger plans have choice of lots of doctors if you need a lot of choice.

[Power 2 the People]

6. Conveniently Ignorant

As a businessman how could he not acknowledge that healthcare costs are one of his biggest expenses? A big chunk of the bottom line goes to health insurance carriers. With "medicare for all" in place, those costs are eliminated. It would be a godsend for small businesses.

[Hoyt]

10. True, but you would be taxed accordingly. That's OK by me, though.

[Power 2 the People]

22. The tax would be a pittance compared to what businesses would save on premiums.

This is what needs to be explained to misinformed small business owners and people who are oblivious to politics and policy.

[Hoyt]

24. I doubt it would be a pittance, but you are right, it would replace -- and maybe lower -- what

businesses are currently paying without all the hassles. It's been awhile since I've had to mess with negotiating a plan, but it was a real hassle. Then, if something went wrong -- like the insurance plan didn't pay -- who got blamed?

[Squinch]

7. Really? He "strongly pushed back?" Wow.

[CanSocDem]

21. Kicked...

...to counter another thread disparaging, what I presume, is the whole idea of public health. Strange concepts, bad spelling and incoherent rage directed at the messenger. All this from one of the unhealthiest countries on the planet.

Kicked for truth.


.

[guillaumeb]

23. Agreed, and thank you. eom

[SHRED]

26. Howard can go intercourse himself

[guillaumeb]

28. He is typical of his class. eom

[gulliver]

29. Focusing on numbers is better. Coverage for "all people" is a problem when we are this polarized

Universal health care requires getting people in the mood to make common cause on health care. I don't see that happening while we have full employment and high polarization. I wish I did. For-profit, non-universal healthcare is bad healthcare.

[Yavin4]

30. The biggest issue is how to compensate health care providers and at what level

You cannot pay a gynecologist in Alabama the same as you would in NYC, and what happens if some providers refuse to take Single payer patients? That would mean that millions of Americans would lose access to their personal doctors.

These are things that have to worked out and developed over time. A public option where folks would pay in and get basic coverage is a good start.