181–190 of 1001 posts
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…
The US is far too broken for such a thing to ever come to be. Politicians are bought and paid for, and the impact on the insurance companies and their profits make this impossible. US legislators will never, ever, ever put the needs of the people above the needs of corporations, not as long as corporations can wield their massive wealth as "free speech" in the form of lobbying and political donations. Sounds nice, th…
When I was a kid, my parents would say “with that attitude, you’re right.” We can and should expect a lot out of the people around us and especially the ones who choose civil service. Our grandparents ended slavery, got votes for women, established a merit-based civil service, fought fascism, passed equal rights legislation, and created the most dynamic large economy in history. We have problems, too, but we are not…
It's literally everywhere. So much negativity. Sometimes I wonder how much is enemy action and how much is just depression or some other mental illness.
Also - given the rate of AI progress, shouldn't we see this cost go to zero essentially.
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…
ACA has saved tons of lives. Due to the intense opposition, it was not structured in a way that could save money, but rather structured in the way that it could get through congress. Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibil…
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.
There are private options for lots of things in Canada, depending on the province. Without data on what proportion of people are denied and what the consequences are, this isn’t a good faith argument. On the flip side, cases that would get care in Canada are denied in the USA by private insurance. Private options are far outside the means of most people.
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.
Same here in the UK. If you need to see a specialist, you regularly have to wait months, assuming you can even get a referral in the first place.
Two months can be a luxury. With my insurance in the US, it usually takes longer for me to see an in-network specialist. For my kid, it has often taken over 6 months.
Of course, none of these were urgent, so it was fine. If it really was urgent as deemed by a medical professional, I likely could get a quicker appointment.
But my friend, who has even worse insurance, developed a condition and was having trouble getting a diagnosis. He got referred to neurology, and none of the in-network specialists had an appointment for over 2 months. His condition made it hard to sleep every night (averaging about an hour of sleep a night). Due to the lack of sleep, he couldn't function at work. Took a leave of absence, got a plane ticket to go to a relative's country, got to see a neurologist the next day, got treatment that day and had his first good night of sleep in a long time.
Lost his job because of it, though. Unsure what his medical insurance situation is while living on welfare...
I wonder how many people would be on board for a program to make Medicare available for free for households making over $100,000 annually with 1-3 children. We're talking about families that are provably not lazy or sucking up handouts: taxpaying citizens with beautiful, healthy children. The job creators and professionals driving America, securing their future and their children's future. If the government were to f…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the one that currently holds all 3 branches of federal government The key word here is "currently". When did Democrats ever propose or pass single payer when they were in power? Moreover, when the leaders of both parties are opposed to single payer, how in the world do you expect it to ever pass? Jeffries wants to be Speaker of the House after the midterms. If he's opposed to single payer, then there's no hope for…
> Moreover, when the leaders of both parties are opposed to single payer, how in the world do you expect it to ever pass? I don't. However, if I were a betting man, I'd bet on the Democratic leadership to come around well before the Republicans. Not least because a significant, non-zero fraction of their politicians are already in favor of it (compared to the other side, which has close to zero). Without a 60-strong…
Jeffries was already around. He supported single payer but now rejects it, so he's moving backward.
> Without a 60-strong majority in the Senate, which must necessarily include some Republicans, it'll never happen.
Democrats had 60 during Obama's first term. They'll always find a rotating villain to oppose it, Joe Lieberman, Joe mansion, etc. Anyway, the filibuster can be eliminated. In 2013 Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most nominations, and in 2017 Republicans eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying the government is an efficient allocator of resources?
The government does not have the peverse incentive of putting private profit above all other concerns.