I believe Mr. Oliver, whom I like and respect, is quite wrong in his arguments against a healthcare system that allows citizens to choose the payor on their regular/standard healthcare needs.
I don’t have a ton of time for this diary, so I’ll use the recap of his points from a previous rec-listed diary and show why they’re off, in bold.
- Nobody knows what it will actually cost. Anyone saying otherwise is full of shit.
This is true insofar as no one knows EXACTLY what something will end up costing, but this truth is not unique to M4A, and it’s not a good excuse for M4A when we expect, in the private and public sector, for an accurate, supportable estimate of costs. Avoiding doing these accurate estimates casts a pall of doubt on what else is sketchy/iffy about any plan, and will hurt M4A’s political viability.
- Most cost estimates come in at or below our nations current public and private sector combined health care spending, and even if it doesn’t end up that way, it’s worth it.
Waaaait….didn’t you just argue that ‘nobody know what it will actually cost’? Why are you using a presumption that it will be LOWER to support your argument against choice, then?
- The idea of “choice” is an illusion. Most people have one choice: Whatever their employer offers them.
This just isn’t true. Employees can opt out of paying for employer-based care. Employer-based care is often the strongest choice financially because your employer is subsidizing it, but it’s not the only choice.
By the way, if Medicare is the best choice for most people financially, why wouldn’t they choose it and what’s the problem with people opting out?
- People often have no choice at all in emergencies but to go out-of-network — often even when they’ve gone out of their way to try to stay in network
’Often’ is a gross exaggeration here. Most major insurance providers are accepted by all providers and hospitals.
- Under M4A, every provider is in network.
Is this true? Does Sanders plan on COMPELLING healthcare providers to accept/work for MFA treatment requirements and compensation rates? If so, hard to see M4A not being dead on arrival at SCOTUS, OR this mandate being dropped in order for it to be passed...and the Sanders will have his ‘if you like your doctor you can keep them’ Obama moment.
- The “wait time” argument about other nations with nationalized healthcare that is currently a favorite of those opposed to M4A is basically bogus and based on non-emergency or elective procedures.
This is completely true — but logically irrelevant to whether M4A (and a ban of base care private insurance) on its own is the best way forward.
- People wait ridiculous amounts of time *now* because they simply cannot afford the co-pays and deductibles needed to be met to get said procedures.
Alright. If they can choose Medicare, this should be alleviated...again, this is not an argument that supports a system of ONLY M4A in any way.
- A system where people have to choose between one life saving medication or another due to cost is inherently unjust.
I think most Americans would agree with this. The ones that don’t, wouldn’t vote for Sanders anyway. Again — irrelevant point to ‘only M4A’ though.
- Yes, people in the health care bureaucracy will need new jobs, but that can be handled and is part of the plans offered by both Sanders and Warren.
The ‘jobs’ argument has been a crap one since it was first brought up — whether or not people will lose their jobs is IRRELEVANT to what the best system is.
- The current system, as Oliver put it, is a “shit sandwich”, while “Medicare for all who want it” is “still a shit sandwich, only with avocado on it because the same shit still remains.”
Mr. Oliver, we live in the United States. If people want to eat what you think is a ‘shit sandwich with avocado’, they may — that’s a big part of being an American. And, you should respect people in this country more than you clearly do, if you’re willing to sit on TV and imply that millions of Americans don’t know what’s best for them.
And finally, the most succinct point:
- If you’re arguing against M4A, you’re arguing for all of the flaws and unfairness inherent in our current system and you need to own that.
This is 100%, completely, utterly ad-hom untrue and a malicious logical fallacy against any Democrat who wants a choice (i.e. they want Medicare/Public Option + Private options.)
While it’s not generally a good idea to bother answering such an extreme logical fallacy, we’ll simply note here that every.serious.Democratic.candidate supports at least a public option plan.
Many of us Democrats that do not favor a single-payer system like M4A have the same reasons for doing so, and relatively the same expectations. They are:
1. Like Oliver’s list admits, no one knows what the actual costs and taxes will be, regardless of the plan. I want to be able to choose to pay less and self-insure, or get coverage immediately for something that Medicare/M4A doesn’t cover, and I want to be able to keep my providers...and if Obamacare couldn’t keep Republicans from breaking it and forcing doctors to walk from certain plans, we’re not confident the constitutionally-sound M4A could, either.
2. We don’t want to trade one ‘no choice’ plan (that you CAN get out of next open-enrollment) with one that you CAN’T get out of ever. What happens when M4A denies you coverage for something you want or that your doctor recommends (assuming your doctor will even recommend something they know isn’t covered)?
3. I know in a public/private system, my taxes will still go up, especially if those in private insurance are allowed to fall back into Medicare outside of enrollment periods. I know total costs for the whole ‘system’ that includes choice might be higher than one that’s only one way to get care. That’s OK — we as Americans have a unique culture of a foundation in Liberty (save those that are descendants of slaves, who have imo not yet acquired that foundation), and some more cost that 1. Makes sure everyone has the care they need available and 2. Allows Americans the most control over their care, is a worthwhile expenditure.
Thank you for reading! Happy to reply as much as I can; let’s keep it civil and not accuse others of wanting to let people die, etc.
