And BTW, I clarified that government propaganda in a country with open debate cannot dominate. UHC systems are not supported just due to propaganda, people like getting health care. But let’s think about our military. Is it not true that our society glorifies the military much more than other countries glorify theirs? Do you think that might just have SOME effect on how Americans view the military, as opposed to how foreigners view their militaries? Same goes for health care. When an institution becomes a part of the national fabric, or is portrayed that way by the authorities and thought leaders, then it becomes a matter of patriotism.
This has nothing to do with your original and ridiculous claim. Are you trying to pretend you didn’t post it?
Pardon me, sir, but BULL! I admit democracy is not perfect. Unless what you have to offer is better, then I am not interested.
I absolutely reject any claim that “democracy has failed.” It has a success record better than that of any other system of human organization in the entirety of our history as a species. You commit a grievous rhetorical crime by putting words in my mouth to the contrary.
My original claim was that there was no accountability. That is absolutely true. voters can want the system to improve, but have no one to punish if it doesn’t.And since the system itself is sacrosanct, it can’t be fundamentally altered either, even though there are plenty of very successful multi-payer systems out there.
Anything would be better than the government we have, everyone is against getting rid of the government because they are either scared to say anything or they are benefiting from the theft of other people money by the government. Property taxes should be illegal, if you can’t pay the government every year you are not allowed to own a home in america. That is wrong in so many ways
I agree wholeheartedly with that. Sort of. I do believe in property taxes, but they should not be allowed to take your home in you don’t pay. A lien that just sits there until the house is sold is more than sufficient as a collection measure.
We cry over people who lose their homes over medical debt or whatnot, but for some reason have little sympathy when the IRS or a local taxing agency puts someone out on the street. Even for poor people, taxes are a big part of a person’s income, and we should show understanding when someone can’t pay. Governments should be barred from taking primary homes.
No, it wasn’t.
Your original claim was that government propaganda convinces citizens that everything is fine with the health care system. That is inarguably and absurdly wrong.
You’ve never heard of “elections”? I thought they had those in America?
We don’t, we have inaccurate polls. 
Actually, what I said was more nuanced than that:
** Through the use of propaganda, governments convince citizens that the health care systems are a virtuous example of national compassion, and any problems are understandable and simply the price society pays for its superior morality. Even when problems become so intolerable that the public demands better performance, responsibility ends up getting so diffused throughout the government that no one is ultimately held responsible and nothing changes. **
I acknowledged that when problems get bad, the public demands better performance, but there is no one to hold responsible. Elections have never been won or lost based on the performance of health care systems, or the performance of government functions in general. Has Canada ever thrown out a party for doing a poor job managing Medicare? Because Medicare has very real flaws and has had those flaws a long time, and other nations have managed to avoid long wait times without spending more money. So who in Canada is responsible for that? And if no person is responsible for that, could it be the design of the system? Why would Canadian citizens be unwilling to contemplate switching to a multi-payer system if multi-payer systems are less likely to suffer long wait times? Could it be because Canadians consider Medicare to be an issue of patriotism, beyond considerations of mere utility? And if they do resist switching to multi-payer for that reason, can you really say that decades of propaganda had nothing to do with that?
Administration of the health insurance system is a provincial matter, not a federal matter, so “Canada” can’t do this; if you don’t understand how the country works I’m not sure how you’re qualified to make claims on how elections are decided. We’d have to go over individual provincial elections to identify ones that have been affected by public dissatisfaction with health care.
Have provincial elections seen governments turfed out at least in part because of health care? Well, sure. We do have turnover.
I’m sure you do. Yet nothing changes. Maybe it is the system. Is it safe, politically, to question the single payer nature of the system?
I’m not sure what changes you’re expecting to see. No, politicians don’t propose radical changes to the Canadian health care system, because they would go down to political defeat. That is for the simple fact that the CHC system is very popular among Canadians. Why should we change the system to something else when we like the fundamental way it runs? This is not out of any sense of being propagandized into it, but because we have operated within it and see how it works. It seems like you’re saying the fact that we don’t change it is proof that we’ve been indoctrinated into it. If it’s something else, please explain.
The problems that exist in the system are due to it’s single payer nature. Multi-payer systems don’t tend to suffer from long wait times. The tradeoff is that they tend to cost more. Has there been any debate on these grounds?
I would debate that. Purely anecdotal of course, but I lived in Germany for three years and never had to wait for a doctor, dentist, physical therapy, anything. I once wanted to see a doctor when I had a stomach flu, called one three doors away that I had never seen before, and was in his office fifteen minutes later. In my experience, doctors didn’t seem to overbook either, so if I had a X o’clock appointment, I was actually with the doctor within five or ten minutes of X o’clock. My son was born in Germany, and the entire process was so smooth and easy and professionally handled that I can’t anyone imagine who has experienced health care in the US and Germany would prefer the US system. And I felt like I had more freedom because I could see any doctor I wanted without needing a referral from my primary or any concerns the visit wouldn’t be covered.
When you find out in spite of all that, the German health care is almost half as expensive, the entire debate is genuinely inexplicable to me.
Germany is a multi-payer system.
Thus no wait times, as you said.
Purely anecdotal, indeed! We hear anecdotes like this all the time, but the fact is that 99% of Europeans detest their Soviet-style health care and envy the Freedom of America. The New World Order has set up Potemkin Villages which expat Americans like you are steered to when you need a doctor. The doctors in those Potemkin villages are available because no one else is allowed to use them. The Germans you saw who appeared to be satisfied were just actors.
The propaganda is so pervasive it’s likely you won’t even believe me and will call me a conspiracy theorist, but think about: adaher is a top-flight strategist and intellectual of the Grandest Old Party of Freedom that ever existed and he says you’re full of shit. Are you going to believe him, or your own lying eyes?
That would have been funnier if I hadn’t agreed that German health care doesn’t have a wait time problem. Doh!
Wait times aren’t the sole measure of a health care system, of course. There’s also accessibility, cost and quality. As a society, we’ve decided that accessibility and cost, through our taxes (to bring this back around to the topic of the thread) are our priorities for how to run the system. Yes, there are some issues with wait times, but there’s no perfect system, and we’re not to uproot a system that works (in general) the way we like it just to solve a problem that we’re prepared to deal with. That doesn’t make us propagandized - that makes us pragmatic.
It does if you’re wedded to one way of doing things, in the face of evidence that other ways might work better.
As for accessibility, Canada can do a lot better there too:
http://www2.cfpc.ca/cfp/2007/Mar/vol53-mar-college-pressmess.asp
In context, this might be the most Pot Kettle Black thing ever stated.