121–130 of 353 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an excellent point. Medicare and SSI are equally bad programs that should be phased out.
I often wonder if John Galt ever found himself living alone in a room with no one to take care of him in his old age.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I'm not buying this and never have. You're going to need to cite some kind of scientific statistics or stats or studies. When people get sick they come to the US for treatment if they can. You don't see world leaders and those with money going to Canada or Europe for treatment. Not when it's dire. The US is hella expensive for many reasons one is that we have the most bleeding edge medical technology.
Here you go: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/... You can find other articles and studies echoing the same conclusions. > When people get sick they come to the US for treatment if they can. No they don't. And many Americans go to other countries for treatment because they can't afford it in the US. > You don't see world leaders and those with money going to Canada or Europe for treatment. '…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no benefit. The benefit is for the legislatures who passed the law. There was no way that we'd get single payer here in the US because our Congress is very much in the pocket of the health care industry. As such, the markets were a compromise measure enacted by congress to make it easier for people to choose health care. Before Obamacare, it was sort of a black box where only HR people could figure out prici…
There's no way that we'd get single payer here because the Republican party has convinced their base that single-payer health care is socialism and that socialism is evil, which leads to the situation where poor people who desperately need health care and can't afford it still oppose single-payer even though they stand to gain the most from it.
Before the pitchforks come out, keep this in mind: before Obamacare increased access to affordable individual plans, employers were the typical purchasers of health care plans. When you have a 100+ person company, the company pays a rate that averages out their employee pool's healthcare needs. Now we have a situation where more people can more efficiently participate in the healthcare market. Individuals who are you…
I'm sure there are a few very sick people out there who are benefitting. I'm glad that we as a society are able to help them out. But it's clear that I do not have choice in needing healthcare, whereas these providers do have a choice in providing healthcare.
I agree with you that the hybrid approach is not working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For example, in Canada (until recently) Until recently. This means that all people can obtain health care regardless of their ability to pay, and that the system is flexible enough to continue to experiment with the ideal implementation. Are public schools better than private schools? Public schools are exactly 100% better than private schools for students who can't afford to attend private schools. Is the US postal…
1. Try getting an MRI in Canada. Canada rations care via wait lists. 2. Your argument implies that there wouldn't be low cost schools in the absence of public schools. The evidence is overwhelming that the opposite is true. 3. I live in Panama. When I need something mailed here I use FedEx or DHL. The USPS is unreliable and takes far too long. If there weren't laws against private first class mail in the US they'd be…
Exactly. Health care in Canada is a crap shoot. If you're in a major centre and are able to get a family physician I'm sure you think the system is great. Try being sick somewhere where the only option is an over-worked ER staffed by locums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony that you are blaming social security and medicare on the US costs while US healthcare is far more expensive than almost every socialised healthcare system in the world is astounding.
Single payer systems ration the amount and quality of care given. When you ration the amount and quality of care given, you can drive costs down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpos…
"The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is" - I believe you can see that the logical conclusion of that point of view is not a world you'd want to live in. In the US, at least, we have a Constitution that prevents the worst uses of government (though not as much as it used to).
Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?
The purpose of government is not to require the most efficient option. Government isn't capable of it anyway. Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. For example, in Canada (until recently) people were prohibited from using private health…
"Rights" are basically just freedoms we've decided we like a whole lot and want the government to guarantee, so that's not exactly a static category. So on the one hand we can just decide whichever rights are being violated are—at least conditionally—not rights. Boom, done.
On the other hand, is there any such thing as a government that does not force people to do things they wouldn't voluntarily do? I'm pretty sure if you take that away what's left has lost the single most important trait of a government, and what's left is... I don't know, a non-profit begging for money on TV and utterly incapable of fulfilling any of the usual roles of a government? In that case, the fact that single-payer would force people to do things doesn't per se remove it from the realm of legitimate government activity.
As for the utility of the term "single payer", I believe it's distinct enough from the much broader "socialized medicine", which could include things like seizing hospitals and making doctors exclusively state employees, to make it substantially more than just a euphemism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your earlier comment is entirely irrelevant then, seeing as we're not talking about bread delivery, but delivery of healthcare, where - irrespective of whether we'd agree on the feasibility of efficient delivery of "singlepayer bread" - it has been conclusively proven by example that efficient delivery in a single payer model is possible. In fact, not only is it possible, but almost every country in the world that…
Ask yourself what those studies measure and if you can honestly consider those measures fair measures of quality, quantity and equity in providing care. It usually boils down to $5,000 for surgery X in one country, $8,000 for same surgery in another. What an analysis like this always skips is the care that wasn't provided that should have been provided.