Do you have a cite we can read that says that many companies were dropping their health coverage pre-ACA?
Great! So what other principles concerning the way our government is run do you have? Could you state maybe 2 or 3 of them? And if possible, could you say if they are more or less important than “People needlessly suffering and dying”?
I think if you ask him his stance on abortion, you would find this not true (In my opinion).
America is swell, but not exceptional, and far from perfect. We could learn a thing or two from other countries.
UHC in other countries doesn’t obligate you any more than UN human rights laws, or the Paris climate change accord agreement. But it behooves you to consider that others might just be on to something good.
That’s just silly hyperbole.
You didn’t ask me, but maybe you could make whatever point you want to make, instead of looking for an answer you can jump on?
If enough people feel their livelihood threaten due to the lack of access to healthcare, then healthcare becomes a matter of national security, just like the needs of roads or national defense. Heck, it is more likely we’ll loose more people over healthcare than wars with other nations by several magnitudes.
I want to know if he has any principles regarding how our country is governed and whether or not he considers any of them more important than letting people needlessly suffer and die. I’m sure my question was quite clear.
Well, far be it from me to stand in the way of looking for a rhetorical bludgeon to hit someone for caring about needless suffering.
As you were.
This “every other country in the world has UHC” is a non sequitur. They suckle at our teat because drug companies make a profit in the United States and can sell those drugs at cost in other countries. Further, we pay for national defense for these countries and they can devote more resources to social welfare.
How do we withdraw from this, still incentivize research, and still protect half the fucking world? Is Canada going to chip in for half of our national defense, even though they are protected just the same as we are? It’s like your drunk buddy at the party. He doesn’t have cash to pay for gas, but you drive him home anyways. I love our neighbors to the north, but I’m tired of hearing about all of this shit about how they have this progressive health insurance system.
Yeah, you can afford it because we have your ass covered.
This is so delusional that it’s not even wrong.
So…the reason we can’t do UHC is because we spend more on defense than the next twelve countries combined?
Yeah, sounds unfixable to me… :smack:
What is the rebuttal?
I mean, in debate, it’s not sufficient to simply declare that an opposing argument is wrong. You can ask for a cite for any supporting facts, because the proponent of a claim must support his claim. Are you questioning the claim that " we pay for national defense for these countries?" Or are you questioning the argument that because we do this, these other countries have more leeway to fund social programs?
US medical costs are not principally driven by drug company profit (drugs are <10% of all spending), nor do cheaper drugs make UHC possible in other countries.
But that’s not even the big error. The big error is the premise that somehow UHC costs more money, and it’s our defense spending that allows them to spend it. The truth is the opposite. UHC costs way, way less.
They spend less as a percentage of their GDP on healthcare than we do, and generally get better results. What bearing does our defense spending have on that?
If they spend less, it doesn’t matter if we pick up some of their defense costs, right? We’re already spending X on healthcare and they spend <X what difference does it make?
As for our spending to keep Pharma afloat, I’m okay with them having to either accept lower profit margins, or spread the costs to other nations.
Is the underlying position that other countries can afford UHC because we pay for their defense? Doesn’t that assume that UHC is expensive, a burden that only the wealthier countries can afford? Most of us who advance UHC in argument are of the opinion that the opposite is more truthful, the UHC is the most efficient means. So efficient that less wealthy countries adopt it because they have to.
So the argument that less wealthy countries can afford the luxury of healthy citizens because we pay for their defense assumes the unproven and unprovable premise that UHC is less efficient. Buggers the question.
Thanks for the info.
6% over 17 years doesn’t seem like “many” to me, but YMMV.
I think that’s a comparison between two separate pockets.
By this I mean that UHC may well reduce overall health expenditures, if they are all added together, but that reduced cost would be paid by the federal government. The current model for US medical costs spread the burden amongst multiple payers.
So (as I understand it) the statement is that a transition to UHC would be an OVERALL cost savings, but an increase over what the federal government now pays.
I could be wrong.
Right, but as I mentioned above, these is adding up expenditures from multiple payers. Again, this is my understanding, and it may be wrong.
Do you make room for the possibility that with drug costs higher, more violation of intellectual property will occur? And that the loss of that revenue will have a cooling effect on future R&D expenditures?
I don’t know how it all shakes out in the end in terms of federal expenditure. But why does that matter with respect to whether U.S. defense spending makes UHC possible?
U.S. defense spending lowers the amount other countries have to tax their citizens. But UHC either lowers it further or else allows them to tax higher, by reducing the GDP spent on healthcare.