141–150 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about them? The Canadian healthcare system has better outcomes than the American healthcare system in several areas. Most simply, Canadians live longer.
6 month median wait time for treatment, as in the case now in Canada, is not something I'd trade the American system for.
What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.
So the government provided healthcare covers everything then? If not, you cannot legally get it by paying for it by yourself? Curious.
So you’re free to pay for anything else if you want.
What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.
What about them? The Canadian healthcare system has better outcomes than the American healthcare system in several areas. Most simply, Canadians live longer.
My mom's been dealing with an issue with her lungs for the better part of the past year, and trying to get help through any of the intended methods just gets her put on a 2 year wait list. At this point her plan is to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to see a specialist in America.
The current generation of elderly Canadians now having lived a long life spent most of that life in an entirely different Canada. My generation is going to die on a waitlist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if your solution requires perpetual majority control I think once universal health coverage is established, it amounts to political suicide to try to take it away again.
I don’t think “political suicide” exists anymore.
Heck, we still have SNAP, even though it's almost universally hated by republicans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans just consume a lot of healthcare services. Any substantial cost savings requires providing less healthcare service.
Citation needed (per capita please). Given that people constantly, literally AVOID care because they can’t pay for it until it’s such an absurd problem that it’s very, very expensive, I struggle to believe this, at all. And money amount doesn’t matter in this evidence because, again, Americans regularly avoid care until it’s catastrophic because they literally can’t afford it and/or have to wait for insurance to meet…
Until public healthcare advocates understand this and make actual attempts to convince the majority of people who are satisfied with the current system that there are benefits, the status quo will remain.
What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.
My dad, in the US on Medicare (one of the government funded systems), was denied a test. Because we have the option and had the money, he went and got the test himself on his own dime. That kicked off a series of events that led to a quadruple bypass, avoided an impending heart attack, and likely added many years to his life and his ability to remain and functioning member of society. While I love the idea of never h…
We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
There are only two realistic possibilities. Get a Republican to propose some sort of national healthcare or have Democrats fully embrace socialized medicine and not give a shit what Republicans say or think. If it gets implemented quickly enough then getting rid of it will be very difficult to do. People won’t give up free at the point of usage healthcare once they try it out.
We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…
These types of studies, and the goals they aim to support, always frustrate me as solving a surface-level problem rather than root cause. The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is. As always there are multiple factors at play, my list would include corruption, lack of legal accountability/responsibility, and a population that is much less healthy than reasonable. Go after any…
You could have universal health with zero additional spending by the US government, but all that administrative overhead is someone’s income.