It may even be somewhat less than official figures imply. Physicians are paid to prescribe to their patients as “research”, though the payments are really just in lieu of other junkets that would show up under “marketing.”
The funny thing with the “single-payer now” crowd is that these are the same people we dog-cuss our politicians all the time about this and that. And I agree with them that our congress and president are worthless. But somehow, I’m supposed to set that aside and believe that they’ll do a great job turning everything into single-payer. These idiots who can’t tie their shoe - many of whom despise average working Americans - are going to completely re-engineer healthcare and everything will be better. It boggles the mind.
Probably because its not a particularly difficult task, except politically. And politics is the one thing we expect politicians to be good at.
I mean, everyone else does it with no more whining than usual for officials trying to get their budget up. And much cheaper than the US, as in 2-3 military budgets cheaper. Berlusconis Italy did it. Portugal. Ireland, Iceland, Austria, Taiwan, etc. No-one else things it much more complicated than providing education.
The US would also have two huge, massive advantages over everyone else. Economics of scale and the ability to examine 50 plus years of UHC in 40ish developed nations. Lots of things have been tried, evaluated, rejected or improved. The US has no special immunity from economics.
Haven’t you tried that argument before?
The trick is, the people in government actually have to want it to succeed. If something doesn’t work right, the government needs to act to fix it, instead of acting to make it worse so they can try to dismantle it. the ACA, for all its faults, did not get anything resembling care and feeding from our government to make it function better. I’m amazed it hasn’t crashed long before now.
…But re-engineering health-care is policy, not just politics. And policy is something that our congress is not good at, and that Trump doesn’t understand. If giving a few good political rallies was enough to re-engineer healthcare and make it all better, then sign me up. But policy is something our congress is particularly and specifically bad at.
Most people on this board realize that. So, if I take their comments at face-value, then I can’t square that with, “Oh, and when you’re not busy destroying the world, please set up single-payer healthcare”…
So, what, you’re just suppose to shrug your shoulders and give up? No. You do your best with what you’ve got, even if what you’ve got is the U.S. Congress.
What a sad, defeatist attitude that ignores the great things this country has accomplished under inspired leadership! It may be bad at policy but it still enacted Social Security, Medicare, and – not to overuse a tired old trope – put men on the moon. And in each case, the enabler was an inspirational leader – in these cases, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and John F. Kennedy, respectively. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if it was mere coincidence that all three great presidents were Democrats.
We just elected a guy who tweets about women bleeding when they get facelifts. Let’s take a break from “saving” the healthcare system, and focus on the task at hand, which is making Trump an ex-president. The last thing we need is anyone in the current administration or congress “fixing” healthcare.
Trump was democratically elected (sort of, never mind the Electoral College stuff). So it’s hard to make any interpretation of your statement other than one that effectively says “we cannot have the kind of health care system – or, indeed, the kind of society – that the rest of the world enjoys, because we are a nation of morons who are fundamentally incapable of governing ourselves”. That seems to be exactly what you’re saying with respect to health care, and the OP appears to be saying it more broadly with regard to social solidarity as a whole. Is that really the sentiment that either of you want to express and truly believe?
I’m trying to understand the debate between wolfpup and survinga since I largely agree with both.
While the GOP is in control it’s silly to hope for anything but to return control to non-criminals. Most of us would agree with that.
But this confuses me:
Some of the grammar in this post boggles my mind. Setting that aside,Are you aware that the last time the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate was January, 1979?
In making this statement I am of course specifically excluding that heinous DINO, the Senior Senator from Insurance Companies Who-Must-Not-Be-Named outside BBQ Pit. He voted for ACA only after ensuring that instead of a public good it would be another boondoggle for his constituents, the insurance companies.
NETA: And lest calling [del]Voldemort[/del]Lieberman a “DINO” be thought hyperbolic, recall that he endorsed McCain against Obama in 2008. He did not endorse Romney in 2012 but IIUC didn’t endorse Obama either.
What I’m saying is that currently, one of our major political parties is sick. And until the Republicans return to sanity (a big “if” on that), I don’t want them touching healthcare or implementing any “great solutions” on any domestic front. I don’t trust them to govern faithfully on almost any issue.
Typically, I am an incrementalist. I like small changes over time. That’s what the ACA was. It also was Bush’s Medicare part D’s approach in 2003. I’m not anti-government. I don’t say that government should do nothing ever.
But right now, we have an issue we have to deal with that involves cutting a cancer out of our politics. Until that happens, I want nothing done on healthcare.
Yes, I had a typo in my previous post. Sorry.
There are other reasons that I don’t want single-payer, aside from the politics. There’s another incredibly long thread where I discussed that.
But for this thread, I was just pointing out that our current rulers in DC are not fit to overhaul my backyard swimming pool, let alone healthcare. Any talk about single-payer (even for those that want it) is fantasy-world talk.
Impeccable logic: I’m against something in my best interest because I don’t think it will be implemented right.
This is wrong because it mixes up personalities and interests. If you replaced every congressman and Senator tomorrow, we would still not be any closer to a workable system because the interests the politicians represent would not go away. Doctors and nurses would still not want huge pay cuts. People who like their current insurance would not want it changed, patients would still want access to the latest drugs and technology. Middle class people would not want huge increases in their taxes.
The problem is that people want a system that is cheaper, covers more people, and doesn’t affect quality. These goals are in fundamental opposition to one another.
That is not what I’m saying. There’s another thread where I lay out my views more completely.
But even if it was what I’m saying, there’s nothing wrong with that statement. The world is full of theoretically awesome things that people would like, but they can’t - or shouldn’t - have, because their fantasies do no match the reality of what they will actually get.
Yes, that’s what I want, the same system available in every other industrialized nation on the planet
Only if you’re a Republican.
Venezuela has 31 million people compared to Scandinavia + Finland + Iceland’s 26 million.
To be short you have to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. Small countries can skim the cream and profit. This is why a state like Delaware does fine. They found a niche in chemicals and corporations and skim the cream which is enough for their small population. You can’t apply what Delaware does to California, nor can you compare Venezuela to the Nordic countries.
Is this really the most pressing issue when it comes to comparisons for you? Not, say, that Venezuela is basically a democracy in name only, run by populist dictators who have basically no fucking clue what they’re doing? I can’t shake the feeling that’S the more significant thing.
Like, seriously. We keep talking about things like oil reserves and cultural homogeneity and population and all these factors that might help us figure out whether implementing socialism in the US would lead to this outcome…
Guys.
Venezuela is a kleptocracy.
We’re not talking about a modern democracy with a functional political system. It’s one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Their president literally is talking about trading food for votes, and people are going to his political rallies not because they support him, but because they think they might be fed. That is how bad things are. The whole article gives a pretty good overview of where things are (and if it sounds chillingly familiar to those in North Carolina, it should).
That’s why this whole thread seems so silly to me. Venezuela’s problem really isn’t socialism. It’s horrific mismanagement and corruption. It’s a country backsliding from democracy after a massive economic collapse. The whole comparison feels stupidly wrong.