Sounds like after-the-fact facilitation, rather than causation, but what the hey. Even if we still give the government full blame, it’s hardly an argument that nothing the government could possibly do could possibly work ever ever.
ETA: Ah, okay. What do you suppose the unintended consequences of UHC would be? (Keep in mind, you don’t have to guess. There are extant examples of various kinds of UHC.)
That’s a reasonable position - and I would assume it implies that it is not acceptable to let people die if society can afford to treat them. If we cracked down on cost overruns for new fighters, or actually only built the number the military wanted instead of what Congresscritters with defense work in their districts want, you’d be fine with using the money to save lives, right?
Maybe we could start having that discussion of certain people didn’t start screaming “death panels!” when a proposal that has the words “end of life” is offered - even if the proposal came nowhere clear this one. But it is a good one to have. No matter how much money we save by other means, we really need to look at the utility of certain surgeries for someone with a terminal illness. I suspect old people would agree, since surgery has risks also and recovery is difficult the older you are.
I didn’t think that the fact that people over 65 needed more health care was exactly headline news. People over 50 need more than those who are 25 - I sure do. Ten year old cars need more maintenance then two year old cars.
A quick Google brought up this which shows that life expectancy once you reached 65 has grown 4.5 years since 1950, which is something like a 40% increase. This explains a lot of the issues. There are plenty of people who are using health care at these ages and yet are still pretty healthy in general. Do you propose telling these people they should die because they are costing too much?
Surgery isn’t the main problem for exactly the reasons you state. At least here in Norway, it’s certain really expensive medications that needs to be prescribed over many years that is the main factor of increasing costs.
If you were truly skeptical about this (in the sense of being a skeptic, rather than using the word skeptical to mean “I don’t want to believe it”) then you’d be interested in the evidence. Lots of people act as though we were discussing this radical new hypothetical system that has never been tried before, and we can only guess at the results.
We have decades worth of data from over a dozen other countries who have tried various methods. There’s some variation depending on their particular system, but they all seem to do roughly as well as us (better at some things, worse at others) for much less cost. So when people think that by moving closer to a system like theirs we’d save money like we do, it isn’t unsubstantiated. There should be debate as to whether the current specific proposal would have those effects, but dismissing the idea of government involvement automatically being worse and more expensive while contrary evidence smacks you in the face is just adhering to blind faith of ideology. It certainly isn’t skeptiicsm.
We spend somewhere around 40% of our medical spending towards things that aren’t actually medical treatment like huge administration costs where medical providers employ entire departments to haggle and argue with entire departments hired by insurance companies. All this is money not being spent on actual health care. For comparison, in the US, medicare only has about 4% non-medical overhead. Now obviously the current proposal isn’t perfect, so it won’t realize this degree of benefit - but if we could get our entire medical system paying an overhead fee similar to medicare, that’s over 30% of our health care related spending that’d be freed up to do actual health care (increasing the availability or quality) or reducing our costs. People aren’t assuming that there will be magic - people are saying that we could turn our ridiculous overhead costs into actual medical treatments and/or save the money.
No, you and other opponents of reform are lying about the idea of a “government takeover”. You’re arguing essentially against single-payer where government boards decree specific treatment, but no proposal we’ve seen has been anything like that. The current proposal leaves most of the system intact, but requires the insurance companies to screw people less like not dropping them on a technicality if they actually manage to get sick. We’re not talking about single payer, and we’re not talking about the government dictating specific medical treatments or anything like that. The closest part of your analogy to being true is the “subsidize the cost of automobiles and insurance for everyone”, but the rest is in-apt.
You didn’t misunderstand, it was hostile, but directed towards yorick73. His/her comment came across as yet another American that was told something about a European UHC system and is regurgitating that here. It was also uncalled for so I accept the spanking, and took it as a good lesson in what not to do.
I’m certainly interested in evidence. However, I don’t consider pointing at other countries and saying ‘See? They do it’ as solid evidence that the same thing would work here. For instance, other countries have policies that completely or mostly ban the possession of firearms. This works really well…for them. How well has it worked out here in the US? Other countries have wide scale use of nuclear power…how well do you suppose it would work out if tomorrow the government declared, by fiat, that we’d be building 100 new nuclear power plants throughout the US? Mind…I’m all for this, but I know what would actually happen if the government decided to do this…and especially if they asked the tax payers to pay for it.
I remain unconvinced both that pointing at other countries and saying ‘it works for them’ and then blithely asserting that this obviously means it would work the same for us is evidence, as I remain unconvinced that it IS in fact working all that well in many countries that have UHC. Note, I didn’t say all…I said many.
And your blind blather here isn’t credulity either, ehe? 
If you want to prove it to me, then show me how it would ACTUALLY work within the bounds of our own system. How this time the politicians wouldn’t use this as just another gravy train to get stuff for their own home state. How the various metrics wouldn’t be adjusted by the political party in power to suit their own needs. How such a system could be REALISTICALLY sustained through different administrations and shifts in majority in the house and senate. How you would get the Republicans to buy into such a system in order to HAVE it be sustained when the worm next turns and they regain a majority…or when they put another president in the WH. How, of all government programs, THIS one will actually deliver on the promise (and what that promise actually is, since the goal posts keep shifting, along with the price tag and the plan). How it’s possible to provide more people with care, cheaper and better quality than what the majority in the US currently get…and, if this isn’t the case (which we all know it isn’t), exactly what we are getting for our money here…and exactly what the real costs, factoring OUR real political, economic and social make-up here IN AMERICA, will be.
Or, you could just hand wave away my supposed skepticism by blithely going on about how this works in Canada or Europe, as if this is a real rebuttal.
Yeah…we spend too much on health care. No doubt. And I’m not denying we need reform, either…though you seem to think I am. But I am not convinced, despite being in myriad of these threads, that UHC is the best way to go in this country. And I am REALLY unconvinced that the current plan (over $800 BILLION dollars and rising) is anything but a huge waste of money. It’s ALREADY a political football, with deals being made left and right to try and get the votes…and the entire Republican party opposed to it and basically getting it rammed down their throats. Now, perhaps you think that’s a good thing…and, frankly, I’m not shedding any tears over the Republicans being on the shoving end this time. But consider the reaction of the Democrats to having the Republicans shove shit down THEIR throats when they had the whip hand…and then consider that, even if this is the greatest government plan devised (:dubious:), what will happen when the Republicans DO get back in power? Will the plan stand? How bastardized will the current bastardized plan become when THEY put their thumbs in…or actively tear it apart?
I’m not sanguine about this plan in any case, but considering the way our political system works, IMHO it is completely, utterly and hopelessly doomed…and while that, in and of itself be a bad thing (we NEED reform), what makes it worse is the price tag. It’s going to be doomed AND it’s going to cost us…a LOT. Nearly a trillion dollars, and it’s been my experience here in the good ole USA that government estimates, especially on a ‘plan’ that is going to have to be revised on the fly and almost immediately (because there are all those back room deals being hatched as we speak) is rarely (read: ever) under budget on something like this.
-XT
So what do you suggest? We put our hands over our heads and say “WOE IS ME?” We continue to do nothing? Is America really so different that things that work in other countries won’t work here? Is our government really so much more venal and corrupt than other first world countries that what works there will not work here? Are the American people really that much worse than Canadians, Europeans, Australians, Koreans and would soooo take advantage of the system that it would destroy our economy? Really?
Sucks to be us. In your opinion no matter what we do we are doomed. What a pathetic country you live in.
No…not really. But then, you aren’t asking me…you are telling me what my position is. So, carry on…
At least my country won’t go up in flames if someone brings a match close, or have crows shit on it…
-XT
I’m sorry, but I find this stance a bit ridiculous, and faintly smelling of paranoia. There are also lots of countries (like Norway and Canada) that only regulates firearms, and I think both have at least as high rate of gun ownership as the US. Hell, here in Norway (barely 5m people) we have 30,000 reserves in the home guard with assault rifles at home. To buy a gun, you have to prove that you can use it, and that you aren’t a criminal. And you have to store them safely locked at home. What’s the big deal? Lots of countries in Europe know perfectly well what it means to be invaded by a foreign army. They are certainly prepared to stand up for their rights if they need to, even against their own government (this actually happened here in WWII).
Um no I’m not. Here’s what you said:
What would you consider solid evidence that it would or would not work here? You’ve basically dismissed that it will work here with no evidence at all.
What does that mean?
That is so fucking Canadian!
How would it work on in Norway if someone was pushing through the exact gun ownership system we have here in the US? Would it work exactly as it works here? Could we use how American’s keep and own firearms as a good metric for exactly how the population of Norway would react? How about if someone wanted to transport our exact health care system to Norway…would it work exactly as well as it does in the US for the Norwegian people? Would they be willing to make the same exact trade-offs American’s are willing to make between the level of taxation and the level of service? How about your political system? It work exactly like the US? Are you, in fact, exactly like the US…only talk funny?
As for your assertion that I’m paranoid, since you don’t have a fucking clue what my stance on gun control is or isn’t, nor what I do or don’t know about Europe and their stance, nor, seemingly what my point was, I’ll treat your post in the same manner as sinjin’s. However, if you’d like some clothes and a nice hat to go with your strawman, I’d be happy to oblige…
-XT
Um, no…I didn’t. What I said was SHOW ME HOW IT WOULD WORK IN OUR SYSTEM. Seems clear enough. Pointing out how it supposedly works in another country, with another social, economic, demographic, political, cultural, etc differences does not, IMHO, constitute proof. So…if that’s all the proof you gots, then you are correct…I have dismissed this. If, however, you can provide even your THOUGHTS on how it MIGHT work in our ACTUAL system, then I’d be more than interested in hearing them. Or not, as you choose.
Bluntly, that you have no idea what my position on this is, and that you are building strawmen and attempting to assert what my position actually is…without a freaking clue what it, in fact, is. Strawmen burn and are used to scare crows, ehe?
-XT
Well since it seems to work in other countries that are both similar to ours, Canada, Australia, and not similar to ours, Korea, I think it would be on you to show why it would not work here. What is sooooo different about the USA that what works in such different locations can’t possibly work here. Seriously, do you really think that the American people and American politicians are so much worse than those in Canada or Australia or Korea? No kidding, I really want to know.
So what is your real position? Small words and short sentences please, thnx.
No, I actually understand your point about transferring systems. I think you overestimate the problems, but I really don’t want to get involved in discussing the actual political process in the US, since I don’t know it that well.
I said “faintly smelling of paranoia”, not that you were paranoid. I chose my words carefully to avoid that. I’m sorry if I didn’t succeed.
There actually are countries that disallow private weapons, but there are not that many of them. Your post seemed to indicate that you thought they were very common - and somehow mix it up with the presence of universal health care. I wished to point out that it was wrong and that there is no connection.
Saying sorry is Canadian? Opposed to what?
Or is this just some cultural thing that a poor European could never grok?
Many have had UHC for decades. Germany has had it since 1889. Can you give us an estimated timeline here for collapse?
Somehow, I suspect your answer will be long after you are buried and in the ground. Which means you will never, under any circumstances, have to admit to this board that you are wrong and that Universal Health Care won’t make a country fall in ruins. Even if you turned 122 and surpased Jean Calment in age you’d still say with a straight face that the collapse is doomed to happen someday.
If we were debating the use of nuclear power, and you said, “I don’t understand how nuclear power would work with our grid system, it’s special.”
I would point to a dozen or so countries with a similar grid system and say, “check it out, the plant produces power, using the same generators, and can be 2, 3 or 4 phase systems, with a variety of currents.”
Basically which we’ve done. UHC isn’t THAT much different than what’s currently going on and your system isn’t that special.
That is certainly an interesting take on American Exceptionalism. How much of that do you actually believe? Your system is special, so it can’t handle UHC, is that how I should read that? Your government is so brutally incompetent it can’t managed a health care system? Is this the same American that Hannity calls the greatest, bestest, most awesome country in the world?
No…I don’t believe I overestimate it at all. There are a lot of fundamental differences between Europeans and American’s…even between Canadian’s and American’s. Not least our political systems which, on the surface seem very similar, in practical terms are really quite different.
If, for instance, the Dems manage to push through their proposal, which seems likely though far from certain, the Republican’s will be almost uniformly opposed. Well and good…this year. And maybe next year. And perhaps for several more years. However, at some point, the Republican’s will almost certainly regain a majority (in fact, they will probably gain at least some ground in the coming election), and, at some point, will almost certainly regain the White House to some day. What will happen then? Whatever does or doesn’t happen with this proposal, unless it’s wildly popular (and at the cost, I can practically guarantee you that it won’t be), the Republican’s will either seek to kill it completely, or, more likely, to poke holes in it, further bastardizing it. This is the norm here…the Dems will propose some new program, legislation, or regulation, the the Pubs will then set about circumventing it, killing it, or modifying it to more suit their own political purposes…and vice versa of course. The Dems, for instance, are in the process of gutting an program or legislation that the Pubs managed to get through when they held the whip hand…or, modifying, changing or taking any programs to popular or to politically costly for them to directly do away with.
And this exact same process will play out with this…except in this case we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, which means it won’t be killed. Only modified, changed, used and kicked about, cut, underfunded and bastardized.
I’m sorry you didn’t either, but it highlights what I was getting at. You THOUGHT you were saying one thing, but I didn’t read it that way…and vice versa. You aren’t just an American who talks funny…and I’m not a Norwegian at heart, just darker.
I don’t want to get into a hijack here, but you, again, have no idea what my position on this subject is. And, you don’t seem to have understood the point I was getting at. What you are raising here isn’t central (or even tangential) to the point I was making…which was to underscore the differences between the US (in myriad levels) and Europe…or Canada. Or Australia. What works HERE would not necessarily work in the exact same way in your own country…and vice versa. We don’t think the same, we don’t look at things in the same way, and our political system doesn’t work the same way. So, attempting to say that what works in one system necessarily works in another in the same way, or to attempt to assert that the metrics would be the same is, IMHO, not valid. It MIGHT work in the same way, but then again, it might not…and what works for one (or even 10 or even 100) does not necessarily mean it will work for all (or even a few, or even 1).
I don’t think that the current plan being looked at will work…not even a little. I think it will be a cluster fuck. In fact, I think it already IS a cluster fuck. I also don’t think that UHC would work in the US. Not because I necessarily think UHC is unworkable, but because taking a realistic look at our political system and at our population and it’s, um, changeability (not to mention it’s basic aversion to paying more taxes), I don’t believe that it would work…not as things stand today. And not with one of the major parties in this country pretty much in lock step opposition. Any change that has a realistic chance of actually making a lasting change is going to have to have buy in from both parties, at least at some level. If not, then as soon as the opposition party regains the reigns of power they are going to torpedo it. Sadly, they won’t sink it, however, because that’s not the way our system works either…what they will do is mutate it into something far worse than it ever was. And what we’ll get is the housing crisis all over again…or the Iraq war. Or the Department of Education. Or…well, or or or…
-XT