Politics Warren Admits Universal Medicare will result in 2 million job losses

colin traveller

Mi Field Marshall
MI.Net Member
TAARB
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
8,787
Points
348
Do the haters of Trump realise or give a damn at all .... if they were to vote for Wannabee Indian Warren that she garuntee's 2 million job losses .. that's just the start ,, of her first term .




Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) agreed on Wednesday with an assessment that a “medicare for all” plan would eliminate roughly two million jobs.
Warren was speaking during an interview at New Hampshire Public Radio.
“An economist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, told Kaiser Health News earlier this year that that could result in about 2 million jobs lost,” mostly within the healthcare industry, said NHPR reporter Casey McDermott.
“So I agree,” Warren replied. “I think this is part of the cost issue and should be part of a cost plan.”
The economist cited by McDermott, Robert Pollin of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts, had stated politicians who want to set up a “medicare for all” system would need a plan for how to treat those who would lose their jobs.
Warren previously said she hasn’t nailed down the specifics of her medicare proposal. The Senator has vacillated between endorsing Bernie Sanders’s plan and calling it a “framework,” whose details she plans to fill out.
In the Wednesday interview, McDermott asked Warren when prospective voters would be able to see her full medicare proposal.
“Soon,” Warren answered. She also declined to specify whether the plan would raise taxes on middle class workers.
“We will see most likely rich people’s costs go up, corporations costs go up, but the costs to middle class families will go down,” Warren asserted. “I will not sign any legislation into law for which costs for middle class families do not go down.”
Sanders on Tuesday also declined to provide specific details as to how he would pay for his universal medicare plan.
“”You’re asking me to come up with an exact detailed plan of how every American — how much you’re going to pay more in taxes, how much I’m going to pay,” Sanders told CNBC. “I don’t think I have to do that right now.”
 
So what are they exactly saying ? The current US system unnecessarily over employs 2 million people just to keep it private and moving to a state run system will allow for full coverage using less people ? Sounds a good plan to me . Why the hell should the average Joe dole out money needlessly just to keep people in jobs ? I'd like to think we ve moved on from the days of Soviet Russia .
 
The insured system will remain, though smaller because the state budget system offers waiting lines, risk and lesser quality of healthcare.

If she wants to tackle drug costs using foreign generic drugs, who's going to fund developing new ones. Soviet Warren. I doubt she can go around capping administration and staff in any private run hostpital. They tend not to have unnecessarily employed citizens.

In the UK-"For example, the use of generic medicines has doubled between 2005 and 2017 to reach 75% of total prescriptions. "
 
So what are they exactly saying ? The current US system unnecessarily over employs 2 million people just to keep it private and moving to a state run system will allow for full coverage using less people ? Sounds a good plan to me . Why the hell should the average Joe dole out money needlessly just to keep people in jobs ? I'd like to think we ve moved on from the days of Soviet Russia .

That's a very astute observation. Even though the people who lose their jobs might not agree.

I have to admit I'm a little bit surprised by those numbers, though. Privatised health care should be better at avoiding redundancies.
 
Insurance staff finding something else to do would have been a better reason to vote.
 
I would imagine that screwing up 1/8 of our economy would result in far more job losses than that and be far more expensive than the estimates are. All to turn things over to the Federal government? Who runs them? Big Pharma, the Hospital lobby etc.
 
I would imagine that screwing up 1/8 of our economy would result in far more job losses than that and be far more expensive than the estimates are. All to turn things over to the Federal government? Who runs them? Big Pharma, the Hospital lobby etc.

But your also funneling good money into insurance companies instead of healthcare services . Your paying for the legions of insurance brokers who decide who gets what . Maybe pay for doctors and nurses instead .
 
But your also funneling good money into insurance companies instead of healthcare services . Your paying for the legions of insurance brokers who decide who gets what . Maybe pay for doctors and nurses instead .
Agree. The system is awful, but it works and people with employer provided health care, roughly 150 million IIRC, want to keep it. We've seen an explosion in the number of health care administrators over the past 20 years coinciding with a steep rise in health care costs. The solution has to come from the private sector or a mix of private/public somehow, but I am unconvinced that a plan like Warren's is the answer.
 
Its a smoke screen for free healthcare for those that can't pay for it. Inevitably that's taxing everyone else.
 
Its a smoke screen for free healthcare for those that can't pay for it. Inevitably that's taxing everyone else.

I'm not buying that primer , it's something big pharma would say to keep the status quo . The US spends circa 18% of GDP on healthcare . Plenty of money to go around to meet people's needs plus a reduction in what people pay , be it via taxes or insurance premiums .
 
Its a smoke screen for free healthcare for those that can't pay for it. Inevitably that's taxing everyone else.
That depends on the system. I have no doubt the Democrats plan to introduce just one such system, as they constantly point towards Britain's NHS. But I daresay it's not a must. (continued below)
Agree. The system is awful, but it works and people with employer provided health care, roughly 150 million IIRC, want to keep it. We've seen an explosion in the number of health care administrators over the past 20 years coinciding with a steep rise in health care costs. The solution has to come from the private sector or a mix of private/public somehow, but I am unconvinced that a plan like Warren's is the answer.
Public health care is rife with its own issues, but I think you may wait till health freezes over for a "solution" coming from your private sector. There's obviously no incentive for them to reform their affairs, which surprises me. I mean, I already knew you guys were getting royally overcharged but didn't realise how bloated your private sector really was. The predicted job cutbacks truly are an eye-opener.

Which isn't to say public systems weren't riddled with eye-watering redudancies as well. By the way, I'm urprised the Dems essentially always lobby to replicate the NHS. Why do you think that is? Is it a cultural thing, is (due to the common language) the NHS an easy example for them to point at, or does its nature truly fit their plans best to remodel America into a European-style welfare state?

Call me biased, and this is by no means a jab against the Brits, but I actually think the Dems could be more successful if they offered you the German system instead. It's less tax-heavy and doesn't throw all notions of profitability out of the window. It's also ranked far above the NHS in terms of quality provided.

In Germany, citizens and permanent residents are obliged to enter a public healthcare scheme with one of over a hundred competing statutory providers if their annual income amounts to not more than approx. 70,000 USD. Above the threshold, you may do whatever you want.​
Governmental interference exists only insofar as all providers are required to charge the same minimum contribution and offer the same minimum standard of service, but there's a whole lot to which you can opt in or out. One half of the monthly charge you'll be required to pay yourself, the other half is paid by your employer. The employer can substract their share from your salary, so neither side is off too worse for it.​
Very few people don't contribute to the system at all (children and the unemployed, mostly).​
The only other costs on your end are flat fees on prescriptions introduced to discourage patients from requesting stuff they don't actually need. The fee is about 5 USD a pop for drugs that cost 110 USD or less and double that above. The actual price is covered by your healthcare provider.​
Big pharma's pricing rights aren't infringed on, but the prices are kept down indirectly to the public's advantage insofar as the statutory providers will conclude discount agreements with the industry. The manufacturer reduces the price, and in return the provider ensures all its clients who've been prescribed a certain substance receive the manufacturer's product.​
The system still works well enough that some 6 million people who wouldn't have to enter a statutory scheme decided to do it nonetheless. It isn't normally funded by the tax payer. However, in recent years the providers have received cash injections by parliamentary vote a couple of times. They struggle with the costs of demographic change.​

And there we have the biggest issue with public healthcare (apart from the obvious constitutional implications!): the lack of flexibility. Social developments like demographic change or the obesity epidemic create issues that need swift addressing, but people don't usually vote for burdensome reforms no matter how urgent they are.

In that regard, public healthcare is just another utopia: a nice-enough idea, that might even start out promising but is bound to enter rough waters really soon.
 
And there we have the biggest issue with public healthcare (apart from the obvious constitutional implications!): the lack of flexibility. Social developments like demographic change or the obesity epidemic create issues that need swift addressing, but people don't usually vote for burdensome reforms no matter how urgent they are.

In that regard, public healthcare is just another utopia: a nice-enough idea, that might even start out promising but is bound to enter rough waters really soon.

There's one thing for sure , if American healthcare went all NHS it would wield immense power within that particular sector . To give you an idea , the NHS is one of the biggest employers in the world . Imagine the size of a US version ......... It would dominate the market .
 
L
I'm not buying that primer , it's something big pharma would say to keep the status quo . The US spends circa 18% of GDP on healthcare . Plenty of money to go around to meet people's needs plus a reduction in what people pay , be it via taxes or insurance premiums .
Big Pharma will maintain the status quo no matter what. They’ll just keep buying Senators and Congressmen like they do now.
 
That's a very astute observation. Even though the people who lose their jobs might not agree.

I have to admit I'm a little bit surprised by those numbers, though. Privatised health care should be better at avoiding redundancies.
Well, it is not
It is a pork barrel by itself, just nation wide
GDP wise, the US system is the most expensive, yet the most inefficient in the developped western/world
Money flow may not be lost to everybody in the loop, though.
 
L

Big Pharma will maintain the status quo no matter what. They’ll just keep buying Senators and Congressmen like they do now.

I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree RB . A two party system but one party rule .
 
Trump quipped at his rally in Kentucky.
You'll be looked after if you have a pre-existing condition.... by your pre-existing doctor.
 
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Trumps on fox , going to make hospitals price transparent, massive differences in costs of the same service at the same hospital.

Healthcare stocks higher on the news...no controls
 
Last edited:
Back
Top