If you re-read what I wrote (and I know you can because this time you actually quoted the post) I did not, actually, name EVERY COUNTRY ON THE PLANET. Most people can figure out where I’m going with that - developed countries, what we used to call “first world”. I’m not sure why you, personally, didn’t grasp that.
So tell me - why can Denmark, Germany, France, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand manage to pull off UHC for less money and better results than what we have in the US? And why can’t the US do the same?
Context *is *important. We can deduce that Broomstick was probably talking about UHC, even though UHC was not explicitly mentioned in that particular post.
But we can also deduce that when Broomstick said " the US is the only one that doesn’t" that she didn’t mean “literally every country/nation in the world” even though she didn’t explicitly state that.
So basically the ONLY argument you have is that “You stupid, ignorant Americans, you dont know what’s good for you, you need to be more like Sweden!”.
A argument that has never worked, that alienates those you are trying to convert and is a specious illogical argument anyway. What is the definition of insanity?
It doesn’t work for Gun control, for higher taxes, for UHC, for ANYTHING.
and then of course, you attack someone on your side, for pointing out that it’s a stupid argument that has never worked. because you cling to it.
But you can’t argue that’s it’s the right thing to od, it’s actually cheaper, and it’s more fair.
All you got is a argument that works opposite from the way intended.
And of course- that’s “part of the problem”.:rolleyes:
But go ahead, keep doing it- and then we’ll never have UHC.
…what the fuck are you going on about? How the fuck do you go from " 'It works in Denmark, so it will work here" to “You stupid, ignorant Americans, you dont know what’s good for you, you need to be more like Sweden?”
Nobody is making that argument in this particular thread, and I very rarely see them making that argument anywhere else on the internet (although I have no doubt that it occasionally happens.)
This is Great Debates. We debate here. We aren’t trying to get “world peace.” We are fighting. With words. My job here isn’t to “convince the American people that UHC would be a good thing.” People in the real world can take care of that.
America is unique. Its unique in its stubborn refusal to listen. To deflect. To pretend that it is somehow “exceptional”, and that there is a reason why the things that other nations find ways of doing is impossible to implement “in the land of the free.” And you exemplify that attitude.
Yep. The deliberate (and at this stage it has to be deliberate) conflation of a position with a strawman is a big part of the problem. And if you don’t get UHC it won’t be because people ask entirely reasonable questions like 'It works in Denmark, why can’t we make it work here" but because of the intentional over-reaction to questions like that which appear to have the singular purpose of shutting down the debate.
That’s how it comes across. See this line "America is unique. Its unique in its stubborn refusal to listen. "
No? Only in posts #1, 42, 47, 65, 69, 70, 76, 82, 84, 85, 96, 101, 103, …
And see, you then add in “And you exemplify that attitude.” even tho I am 100% in favor of UHC, but am just pointing out that one argument for it doesnt work and in fact is counterproductive.
It won’t work in America because apparently, your one and only argument is 'It works in Denmark, why can’t we make it work here" That’s it, that all you got. And that has failed for decades.
Instead of showing we can afford it, that it is actually cheaper, like I have- you cling to
“It works in Denmark, why can’t we make it work here”.
And then you call other supporters of UHC names and insult them because they somehow can’t see how marvelous your argument it.
Look, if I showed you that UHC was tried and failed in every other nation for decades, would you still still use that argument? Because that is exactly what you are doing- *using a argument that has been tried and failed for decades. *
…nope. That is how it is portrayed. By people like you. You literally just did that now. People don’t hear the original question. They hear how it has been mis-characterized.
Am I wrong?
What about them?
“I’m 100% in favor of UHC, but I will willfully and intentionally mis-characterize arguments in support of UHC because…reasons?”
Arguments are things that we argue about. That it is “counterproductive” is only your opinion.
Fortunately it isn’t the “one and only” argument for UHC. That isn’t all I’ve got, and it isn’t all we’ve got. For decades the NRA have been “untouchable.” But this year due to the actions of some very brave survivors of school shootings the NRA have finally taken a hit in the pocket-book. Sometimes it takes a while for the message to get through.
I have no need to “cling” to anything. I do not “cling” to “It works in Denmark, why can’t we make it work here.”
If someone has insulted somebody in this thread I hope you’ve reported it: because insults are bad.
Is that a serious question?
You haven’t demonstrated how the “argument has failed.” You’ve shown how important propaganda is to be able to shape the narrative.
"Nobody is making that argument in this particular thread,", except as i said Only in posts #1, 42, 47, 65, 69, 70, 76, 82, 84, 85, 96, 101, 103, …
No, it’s ONE argument, and a argument that is hurting the push towards UHC. You said i was "mis-characterize arguments " (note your plural, a nice subtle dig and not true, is this how you debate?) and I am not doing so, I am telling why that argument doesnt work. And the reason is- I want UHC, and* you* are hurting the push for UHC by that bad counterproductive argument.
That’s all you have said so far in this back and forth, and what does the NRA have to do with UHC?
Since you wont drop it, I guess not.
I have shown that your main argument, so far your ONLY argument, hasn’t worked. Has it worked? Do we have UHC?
What is this based on though? Several studies say we can cut 1/3 or more of health care spending without it negatively affecting health. That would free up a trillion dollars or more a year. Money we could use to pay down deficits, invest in renewable energy, invest in education, invest in infrastructure, etc.
…nope. Nobody in this thread has argued “You stupid, ignorant Americans, you dont know what’s good for you, you need to be more like Sweden?” Except in post 106, of course.
I don’t think it is.
You haven’t explained jack-shit. You’ve made an assertion, thats all.
You’ve intentionally and willfully micharacterized arguments such as " 'It works in Denmark, so it will work here" with “You stupid, ignorant Americans, you dont know what’s good for you, you need to be more like Sweden!”
I’m hurting the push? Really? By arguing with you on a messageboard? You flatter me. But I don’t think I’m that important.
I never said the NRA had anything to do with UHC. If you didn’t understand the point then I suggest you go read it again.
Drop what? Have I actually used the argument you are attributing to me in this thread? Are you actually reading my posts?
You mean the argument, the one and ONLY argument, that I haven’t made in this particular thread (yet)?
ROFL!
What a ridiculous standard to uphold. Lets close down Great Debates. LETS STOP ARGUING!!! IT DOESN’T WORK!
Yes: we do have UHC. Or to be quite precise: I have UHC. I think you should have it as well. If we can do it where I live then you can do it in the United States of America. And if me expressing that opinion “hurts the debate” then there are fundamental problems with your society bigger than anything that we’ve been discussing in this thread that needs to be sorted out.
American exceptionalism is a thing, sadly, but I don’t think its as big a thing as it was maybe 40 years ago. In the age of the internet, I think a lot of people are realizing how fucked up our country really is, and that in many ways we are inferior to other nations, not superior. The US has undergone a lot of traumas and humiliations in the last few decades that keep reminding us that we aren’t nearly as wise or strong as we think we are.
Having said that, the real reasons we do not have UHC basically come down to 2 things.
Plutocracy
Egotistical tribalism
for point 1, a lot of rich companies enjoy our broken, over priced system. They make a ton of money out of it. If we made our health care as efficient as europe, that would save 1 trillion a year or more. These companies will not take a trillion dollar cut to their business model and profit margins without a fight.
For point 2, a lot of people in America love to feel superior to someone/anyone. Usually they target these feelings at non-whites and the poor. So for them, UHC is just a way for ‘hard working’ white people to pay taxes so lazy people and non-whites can get medical care. Its a bullshit philosophy (some of the strongest proponents of this I’ve met in person were on programs like medicare or medicaid), but Americans love feeling better than someone/anywone, and we are a very tribalistic, racist nation.
So I don’t think what you’re worried about really matters. If someone could snap their fingers and get rid of plutocracy and egotistical tribalism, we’d have UHC within a year or two.
Also calling Americans stupid isn’t wrong when we act stupid. And we can be a very stupid country.
Of course, none of your arguments, or anybody else’s, have worked either.
Speaking of your arguments:
It’s cheaper. Yes, you presented a study that showed it would be cheaper than our current system. But until it’s actually put into practice, we won’t really know. But right now we can look at other countries and see that they provide better health care at a lower per-capita cost, and use them as an example that UHC would indeed be cheaper.
It’s more fair. What is ‘fair’ is entirely subjective. You and I might think that UHC is more fair, but I would surmise that others do not hold that opinion.
Fewer people go bankrupt from medical bills. Again, until we put it into practice, this statement cannot be subjectively proven. The only evidence we have of this is what’s happening in countries that already have UHC.
It’s the Right thing to do. Again, you and I agree that it’s right. Others may not hold that opinion…and it is, at this point, only an opinion.
Hey, we’re on the same side of this debate. I just don’t see what is so terrible about using other countries as examples to bolster our position.
So, lack of UHC is due in part to racism. Do you have a cite for this? I’ve never seen this used as an argument against UHC.
If insulting groups of Americans was persuasive on this issue, then we need to get you in front of our congress to talk about how racist Americans are keeping us from UHC. I’m sure this argument will win the day and get us single-payer right away.
Posts #26 & #115 are textbook examples of people insulting groups of Americans as part of the argument, exactly in the spirit of what you’re talking about. In one post #26, it’s “morons” (crossed out for “Americans”) who are healthy, and therefore they think we don’t need UHC. In the other post #115, it’s “tribalism”, i.e. racists, who don’t want non-whites who are lazy to get healthcare. I wonder how often insulting groups of people has worked to change millions of minds. I’m sure these insults will change the politics of America, and we’ll get “Medicare for All” if we call enough people morons & racists.
FDR wanted to pass uhc but southern whites were afraid it would lead to integrated hospitals.
Also you have to listen to keywords and dog whistles. Concepts like ‘illegal immigrants’ and ‘poor people from the inner city’ come up as resistance factors to universal health care. Lee Atwater, referencing the the southern strategy, admitted that the GOP’s resistance to statism and a welfare state is just an abstract form of racism.
I don’t think those studies go far enough. If there was perfect knowledge I bet we could cut at least 50% of health care spending without negatively affecting health. The problem is we don’t know how to do that.
In 2009 part of the Affordable Care act was to go after Medicare Fraud, yet in 2015 a report estimated that Medicare Fraud cost the government $60 billion. That is for outright fraud which no politician in the world thinks is a good idea and no voter would be mad if we completely eliminated it. Yet every year the GDP of Luxembourg is wasted on this.
Cutting healthcare spending is a problem for every country. I am sure Canada would love to cut its healthcare spending one third to the level of Spain while improving life expectancy to Spain’s number. They just are unable to do so.
