51–60 of 210 posts
There are three things a nation needs to accept about universal health care: (1) It’s expensive (2) Everybody has to pay (3) The government’s gotta run it
It’s not a matter of acceptance. We can’t accept the cost of anything consistently growing at a rate faster than GDP. That’s just math, not ethics or political choice theory or anything else. Health care cost growth is going to slow one way or the another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why don't we see Republican Americans advocating to adopt the Swiss system which provides universal coverage at a lower per capita cost?
If you only ever look at the way a system works at a specific point in time you only observe it at that point in time. America has had multiple attempts at solutions for healthcare over the years, each started with good intent and then waylaid by various causes to produce what we have right now. A sibling comment mentions political compromise to pass the ACA, as an example of this. Another example is that HMOs were s…
There are three things a nation needs to accept about universal health care: (1) It’s expensive (2) Everybody has to pay (3) The government’s gotta run it
(3) isn't correct either. It needs to be regulated in some way. Government doesn't have to run it. I think it should be treated more like a utility
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People need to stop looking at it like this. Healthcare is a triangle. There are three players. You, Insurance, and Doctor. All three are adversaries and allies in different ways.
In reality the triangle is Doctors, Insurance, Hospitals, and you in the middle.
Family at first but USE PROFESSIONALS. Due to scummy ins company wanting docs.
How is that health care? Babysitting is now health care???
We need a better way to deal with dementia. Not health care.
A literal babysitter to make sure they eat and don't run into the street.
I don't see dementia as sickness. Brain illness maybe.
So we have to warehouse these feeble folk. That is the problem.
We need a more humane way rather than Doctor K's method..
What about the poor old guys girlfriend?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The government’s gotta run it But there are plenty of countries with functioning healthcare systems that are private? The Swiss, for instance. Moreover depending on what counts as "government’s gotta run it" (paying for it? administering it? actually providing care?) you can argue that the German or even Canadian systems aren't government run, at least to some degree.
So why don't we see Republican Americans advocating to adopt the Swiss system which provides universal coverage at a lower per capita cost?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because your congressman gets lots of donations from doctors and hospitals. Doctors like to drive fancy cars. In places with Catholics, you usually get the bishops advocating for the local Catholic hospital system.
So government (my congressman) IS the problem! Thanks for reinforcing what Reagan said 40 years ago.
It turns out the real world is a big complicated messy place and there's rarely a simple answer like "delete government!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you only ever look at the way a system works at a specific point in time you only observe it at that point in time. America has had multiple attempts at solutions for healthcare over the years, each started with good intent and then waylaid by various causes to produce what we have right now. A sibling comment mentions political compromise to pass the ACA, as an example of this. Another example is that HMOs were s…
To be fair the tenet is minimal involvement in the day to day operations of the economy and maximal involvement in the day to day lives of the citizenry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So why don't we see Republican Americans advocating to adopt the Swiss system which provides universal coverage at a lower per capita cost?
Because Republican Americans tend to overwhelmingly think "government bad, private business good". Even the "small-c conservatives".
You need to get this long before you need it, but also ensure it is good plan that will take care of you. The person in the article is lucky to have kids doing that, if you don't have kids who care who will care for you.
That's basically impossible. You will only know if you made the right choice once you are actually starting to use the insurance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In speaking with my republican father in law on his opposition to universal healthcare, it dawned on me that he views it as a sort of zero sum game. If he has healthcare today, and then universal healthcare offers it to folks that don't have it today, it is a loss for him.
Something I've run into in similar situations is the "moral necessity of punishment", sort of a reverse just-world fallacy. "There are people not good enough for health care and helping them would violate this natural order".