I like Pete's approach. I want a robustly-funded public option alongside private insurance, which would allow for people to gravitate toward it over time if it provides both good coverage and sufficient revenue to keep practices like mine afloat.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Same. I’d prefer Medicaid for all; Medicare has too many loopholes. But a beefed up M-aid, w/ eye and dental included, ditto mental health. And let’s pay for preventative stuff like diet counseling and end of life talks etc. Not just procedures +meds.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s not perfect, but Australia’s model is pretty damn good
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If the final Dem candidate advocates single-payer, the election is lost. Why?1. No one trusts the govt to run it and 2. Private health insurance companies are costly but do a good job.
-
"Private health companies are costly but do a good job" = "we ration health care by ability to pay" And even those with ability to pay, pre-ACA, found themselves dropped at the end if an enrollment period in which they developed a serious condition. Not a "good job"
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Damn glad for
#Canadian healthcare. Family doc saved my life by sending me to ER. I had what the cardiologist called a "widow maker". Cost to me was zero dollars.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's what I talked about at every door last year while canvassing for a pragmatic Democratic candidate for Congress. And he won, flipping our district from R to D. People don't want this litmus test health care discussion that's happening now on the Dem side.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Everybody in, nobody out.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I second this!!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ditto for me. I think the evidence shows from international plans - the tiny minority of which are nationalized - shows the benefit comes from universality more than how you accomplish that. If we just sustained effort in the ACA it would have been great. We just have to commit.
-
Still doesn't deal with equity. Under the ACA poor people get shitty insurance (underinsurance). When rich and poor are in the same system, there is more equity.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.