Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[BeepBoo]

Nah they just do it with the threat of poverty rather than guns, which is totally different to you people for reasons.

Just because two outcomes might be the same doesn't mean the methods don't warrant consideration. Someone deciding to sell their left nut because they personally see benefit in doing so (for any reason) is different from the government telling them they have to sell their left nut without a thought for the individual's feelings.

[Elegiac]

Just because two outcomes might be the same doesn't mean the methods don't warrant consideration. Someone deciding to sell their left nut because they personally see benefit in doing so (for any reason) is different from the government telling them they have to sell their left nut without a thought for the individual's feelings.

Still haven’t explained -how- they’re different. Again, ‘reasons’.

[Zan15]

The hope is those people are doing those things of their own volition and not because the government is pointing a gun at them telling them "do this, or jail."

Really? Ever heard of the draft?

[Ihavewaffles]

How can anyone vote no? Like, haf some muthafuckin empathy, man! d00d!

Heck, I think universal healthcare should go for pets too! What if fluffy gets sick?

[BeepBoo]

Really? Ever heard of the draft?

Let's just say there are a lot of things the government does that I disagree with and think it shouldn't

[Witchblade77]

Wait are you really trying to...i mean really?





no it doesn't but in this case the solution has already been proven to be "good" if not great.
Done the right way it benefits the whole economy more than it plagues. Like any action there are winners and losers, but that is why universal healthcare in combination with work programs, unemployment benefits, universal income, etc would limit the fallout and lessen the pain





there are always people above you who are burdened with "you and your family" but they support supporting you guys.

People have already been over this with you a hundred times so I won't bother in this thread how much you benefit from other people shouldering part of your burden.

Let me know the next time we are at "war" that your whole family, including the kids have enlisted and are directly fighting in the war. You don't want those enlisted men in the army fighting on your behalf. You don't want to be a burden to anyone!!

- - - Updated - - -



3x as much because the population difference between the two buckets???

Also did you factor in those 40 year old's are basically paying for both systems with their taxes while the bucket of people in school are not paying shit. Subtract out their tax payments i am sure that 3x becomes something entirely lower.

- - - Updated - - -



Again no one said it would be easy. ACA was supposed to be an impossibility too.




Yes you can.




No you can go to a clinic, urgent care facility, your primary care doctor/specialist can bump you up and see you sooner, etc etc. that is the point of Triage. Its not a one and done process.





Lived in upstate new york where our local "hospital" did not even have a cardiac care unit. They had to fly you over to Vermont if you had a heart attack.
Ever see Canada on a map where it shows where the population is in the country?




No offence but its already been proven your research is lacking in many ways. If you really want to know you should throw out what you think you have learned as facts and read up on the system(s).




Almost every poll has the majority of the country supporting universal healthcare.
We already have massive support for Medicare, VA and Medicaid...you know....universal care lite.

It wasn't easy giving women the right to vote either....





Don't disagree at all but that would not stop me from pushing it to happen just because its going to be hard. Just like i don't want to give up on the ACA just because an entire party decided to blow off its own foot when it comes to the ACA. When the majority of people who benefit from the ACA happen to also be part of that party.

its going to be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but ACA was one step forward, two steps back.

those polls that support universal healthcare remind me of that study that gets often cited as far as canadian wait times go (and I did look up more information than just that one study btw) and the problem with that study is that the responses it gets from the beginning - are biased. most doctors/facilities - did not respond. so the result ended up being skewed. the polls you are looking at - have inherent bias to them as they are taken within a bubble of mostly likeminded individuals. and then... you all are surprised that despite projections and polls, results you get from elections etc are very different. confirmation bias at its finest!

according to the maps I have found - bulk of the population of Canada is concentrated in south eastern part.

now, and i'm talking from my experiences right now and its nice that you brought up that hospital that would have had to fly you to vermont for cardiac care. you are assuming that there is an urgent care to go to. you are assuming that that call to your primary care doctor will result in a bumped appointment that they HAVE an earlier on to give you than the one you already have made however many weeks down the road. THAT has to be fixed in US before we can talk about "going to another doctor" there are a lot of places here where you have ONE option (or like that upstate new york place - no options nearby). and that's that. the next "option" is 80 miles away and not everyone can afford to go that far. this is part of infrastructure that needs to be fixed with OR without universal health care.

may i remind you of the shit that happens when god which southern state was it that rather then ban abortion outright, made the requirements so high, that clinics could no longer offer the services and bulk of women, especially in poorer areas - lost acess to safe family planning services? this is the kind of shit we pull in this country. and this is the kind of shit you have to fight.

however, and that is the point I was trying to make. not that you shouldn't try. but that you should be aware of not only what this is that you are fighting but also try that bit of empathy to understand why is it that so many people seemingly are voting against their self interest and rather then dismiss them outright, work on changing their understanding without being condescending. because you are going to need their votes. do NOT be complacent and think that just because polls and projections YOU see are showing favorable results - this this is how actual results are going to turn out.

it took how many decades to get women right to vote? it took how many decades before the movement realized that hey... women of color are women too and belong in this fight?

again, I'm not saying you shouldn't try. I'm saying you all are oversimplifying just what it would take to make it work. and that historically, this country just LOVES to take multiple steps backwards if you push for progress too hard too fast. the idea of "you can't make me and I'm going to cut off my nose to spite my face" is too ingrained into the culture here.

[Elegiac]

I'm saying you all are oversimplifying just what it would take to make it work.

Not taking into account the complications you invent based on your personal experiences (and then whinge at others about confirmation bias, to boot) isn't oversimplification, it's you making assumptions about what people factor in because of a broad narrative that's cropped up lately about liberals not being in touch with the "anxieties" of "average" Americans.

[Witchblade77]

Not taking into account the complications you invent based on your personal experiences (and then whinge at others about confirmation bias, to boot) isn't oversimplification, it's you making assumptions about what people factor in because of a broad narrative that's cropped up lately about liberals not being in touch with the "anxieties" of "average" Americans.

you are literally not in touch though. you are so convinced in your righteous smugness, that you don't even realize how much you are undermining what you are fighting for with people outside of your own bubble. I would say its frustrating, but at this point its just... sad, really.

you'd rather make assumptions about me, then consider for a moment what I'm actualy saying. but ah well. I think we are going to see within two years (and especially during mid term elections) if I'm being too pessimistic, or you are being too willfully blind.

[Elegiac]

you are literally not in touch though. you are so convinced in your righteous smugness, that you don't even realize how much you are undermining what you are fighting for with people outside of your own bubble.

And therein is the funny thing about this accusation; in touch with what. Y'all never explain what it is we aren't getting, just "Americans are so different from everyone else" without bothering to explain said differences, or pointing at things which you have people from other countries in this very thread telling you happen elsewhere but still don't pose an impediment to single payer (and then dispute anyway because apparently part of being an average American is knowing more about Canadian healthcare than someone from Canada, rofl).

[Zan15]

its going to be an unpopular opinion on this forum, but ACA was one step forward, two steps back.

.

Well it was one step forward till republicans got in power in the senate and WH.

those polls that support universal healthcare remind me of that study that gets often cited as far as canadian wait times go (and I did look up more information than just that one study btw) and the problem with that study is that the responses it gets from the beginning - are biased. most doctors/facilities - did not respond. so the result ended up being skewed. the polls you are looking at - have inherent bias to them as they are taken within a bubble of mostly likeminded individuals. and then... you all are surprised that despite projections and polls, results you get from elections etc are very different. confirmation bias at its finest!

.

Everything is biased then why bother doing polls at all!!
Polls are quite accurate, its people's interpretation of them that are off. You probably think 2016 presidential polls were horrifically bad?

now, and i'm talking from my experiences right now and its nice that you brought up that hospital that would have had to fly you to vermont for cardiac care. you are assuming that there is an urgent care to go to. you are assuming that that call to your primary care doctor will result in a bumped appointment that they HAVE an earlier on to give you than the one you already have made however many weeks down the road. THAT has to be fixed in US before we can talk about "going to another doctor" there are a lot of places here where you have ONE option (or like that upstate new york place - no options nearby). and that's that. the next "option" is 80 miles away and not everyone can afford to go that far. this is part of infrastructure that needs to be fixed with OR without universal health care.

Yes i am assuming, but i can guarantee you what you are explaining in your experience is just that. Your experience. Anecdotal evidence vs the actual outcomes.

You can't fix every problem and get to 100%. You can't allow these outliers to stop helping the other 99%. You don't need to have a fix in place to help the 1% before you move on the 99%.
Again no system is perfect.

They are never going to put a full service hospital in that area of NY. There would be more employees at that hospital then in many of the towns up there. Hell they share a high school with 6 other towns and the Jr high.

But a Canadian healthcare system would PAY TO FLY YOU TO THE HOSPITAL 60 MILES AWAY once the local hospital stabilized you. This is exactly what Medicare in the US did for my father. You know that national healthcare system in the US!!! (well at least national for those over 65)

So "everyone can afford to go that far" under a Canadian System, solving your infrastructure problem right there.

however, and that is the point I was trying to make. not that you shouldn't try. but that you should be aware of not only what this is that you are fighting but also try that bit of empathy to understand why is it that so many people seemingly are voting against their self interest and rather then dismiss them outright, work on changing their understanding without being condescending. because you are going to need their votes. do NOT be complacent and think that just because polls and projections YOU see are showing favorable results - this this is how actual results are going to turn out.

.

i mean technically we didn't need their votes to get ACA rolling and right now as of Yesterday we don't need their votes to roll that ball down the next hill.

You see what happened when republicans wanted to "repeal" ACA. Once people got it, it because toxic for them to actually do it because people finally realized how much it helped them even if they were not socialist pigs!

again, I'm not saying you shouldn't try. I'm saying you all are oversimplifying just what it would take to make it work. and that historically, this country just LOVES to take multiple steps backwards if you push for progress too hard too fast. the idea of "you can't make me and I'm going to cut off my nose to spite my face" is too ingrained into the culture here.

No where did we oversimplify the effort it will take.

For sake of discussion we might have cut down our responses, but if you really want to discuss it in that much detail i can but its going to be pages and pages on how hard its going to be, what needs to be done, the impacts, the solutions to those impacts, the effect on the economy, the solutions to those effects, etc etc etc......

i could be typing for days on just one response.

I've been in week long meetings about the ACA and its impact to the company I used to work for. Trust me its not fun.

[Witchblade77]

Zan. your first sentence. until republicans got in power in WH and senate.

MY.

POINT

EXACTLY.

I'm pointing out that you cannot just skip over the possibility of that happening AGAIN. and you DO need all of those votes I'm talking about... or... this DOES happen AGAIN.

but as I said, we shall see what happens in midterm elections.

[Zan15]

Zan. your first sentence. until republicans got in power in WH and senate.

MY.

POINT

EXACTLY.

I'm pointing out that you cannot just skip over the possibility of that happening AGAIN. and you DO need all of those votes I'm talking about... or... this DOES happen AGAIN.

but as I said, we shall see what happens in midterm elections.

and what did they actually get accomplished vs the ACA? Nothing.

let me say that again NOTHING.

They didn't actually repeal it. They dropped most legal challenges. They didn't replace it or even come up with an replacement.

They actually like the ACA its just they can't openly admit they approve of something that at first they hated so much.

[AeneasBK]

Looking at the fat 40 year old diabetic... Average cost for UK is $532.00 a year..

Huh. If I was diabetic I'd probably shell out the £50 a month for my insulin if the government wasn't going to. But I guess some people would just wait until they needed an amputation, I never thought about it like that.

[Witchblade77]

Huh. If I was diabetic I'd probably shell out the £50 a month for my insulin if the government wasn't going to. But I guess some people would just wait until they needed an amputation, I never thought about it like that.

not every diabetic can afford even that much. having been in a situation like that, you basically ignore being sick for as long as you can, self medicate to the best of your ability when you cannot. it sucks

and what did they actually get accomplished vs the ACA? Nothing.

let me say that again NOTHING.

They didn't actually repeal it. They dropped most legal challenges. They didn't replace it or even come up with an replacement.

They actually like the ACA its just they can't openly admit they approve of something that at first they hated so much.

consider WHY they might like it? (probably cause insurance companies that are making more profit then ever nowadays and they are some of the ones making campaign donations). universal healthcare is a whole other ball game.

dismissing the kind of damage getting complacent can result in is a big part of the issue here. and to bring it back to polls, yes. every poll is biased. that's why you look at ALL of them, not just the ones that agree with you.

in any case. I do appreciate this discussion with you. but at this point we are basically going in circles, so ... I'm going to hope for the best, but I've lived too long and seen to much to expect the best as any kind of given.

[AeneasBK]

not every diabetic can afford even that much. having been in a situation like that, you basically ignore being sick for as long as you can, self medicate to the best of your ability when you cannot. it sucks

I don't know how old you are or what misfortunes have befallen you in that time but if you're 40 in the UK and can't spare £50 a month you dun royally goofed somewhere along the line. Particularly if said £50 is for live saving medicine. But I've not lived that life, granted I'm being callous.

[Zan15]

Huh. If I was diabetic I'd probably shell out the £50 a month for my insulin if the government wasn't going to. But I guess some people would just wait until they needed an amputation, I never thought about it like that.

Sure if you live in the UK. if you live in the US its the difference between being homeless or having your insulin when the cost can be 500+

[Antiganon]

Huh. If I was diabetic I'd probably shell out the £50 a month for my insulin if the government wasn't going to. But I guess some people would just wait until they needed an amputation, I never thought about it like that.

In the US, the average cost is nearly $6000 annually. $500/month.

That gets into "Do I buy insulin or groceries this week?" territory.

[Zan15]

consider WHY they might like it? (probably cause insurance companies that are making more profit then ever nowadays and they are some of the ones making campaign donations). universal healthcare is a whole other ball game.

dismissing the kind of damage getting complacent can result in is a big part of the issue here. and to bring it back to polls, yes. every poll is biased. that's why you look at ALL of them, not just the ones that agree with you.

in any case. I do appreciate this discussion with you. but at this point we are basically going in circles, so ... I'm going to hope for the best, but I've lived too long and seen to much to expect the best as any kind of given.

Honestly the republican leadership secretly likes it because their voters do. They just need to appease the fringe nutbags who they need their votes by saying the hate it worse than hitler.

Insurance company profit margins are in the historical average range, except for last year because of COVID. Of which might benefit them right now but in the future with the negative effects of tens of millions of people who ended up getting covid, it might not last.


I would ask you to do something new then.

How would you implement a new healthcare system/coverage/etc etc?

- - - Updated - - -

In the US, the average cost is nearly $6000 annually. $500/month.

That gets into "Do I buy insulin or groceries this week?" territory.

Which then brings you to the point if you do have a little $$ left over...... where "shit i only have enough money to buy crappy food since crappy food is cheaper and i can't afford the healthy food, fruit, etc etc"

[AeneasBK]

In the US, the average cost is nearly $6000 annually. $500/month.

That gets into "Do I buy insulin or groceries this week?" territory.

Okay, but is it absolutely certain that privatising some aspects of healthcare would lead to a 1000% increase in costs or is that a uniquely American issue? Could reforms in the states lead to insulin being available to diabetics at the cost it is to citizens elsewhere in the world, or is it going to be 6 grand a year and only ever increase?


EDIT: The topic of the thread seems to be only to discuss this as it regards to USA, and I'm sorry for being so off topic, my original post was answering the thread title more than the first post.

[Endus]

Okay, but is it absolutely certain that privatising some aspects of healthcare would lead to a 1000% increase in costs or is that a uniquely American issue? Could reforms in the states lead to insulin being available to diabetics at the cost it is to citizens elsewhere in the world, or is it going to be 6 grand a year and only ever increase?


EDIT: The topic of the thread seems to be only to discuss this as it regards to USA, and I'm sorry for being so off topic, my original post was answering the thread title more than the first post.

Privatization leads to price increases because of one simple word.

"Profit."

Profit is, fundamentally, excess productivity that is bled out of the system for the benefit of those who own it. So, a hospital has to take in more money than it spends, so the hospital owners get returns on that investment. That raises prices over the non-profit alternative, directly.

Then you add in insurance, who bump prices even further because they need to make profits. And pharmacorps. And medical supply companies. And staffing agencies. And paramedic services, if they're run separately. And so on. Every extra step takes another cut, and everyone involved is better off the higher the prices get.

Except the customer who actually needs health care. They're fucked. The entire system is set up to predate on their suffering and lack of alternatives.

Any for-profit system sees similar results, when it can minimize competition. Which health care naturally does, since when you've got a stab wound in your gut, you're not gonna shop around for a better price.