I already answered this post (if you look up a couple posts), but I think it bears repeating again that this an inherently dishonest question you’ve asked. The answer to a fake scenario that’s been set up with only one possible way to reply, is meaningless. In reality, if we can take it down to $50 for both of them together, then probably we can get it down to $25 for just one. So why would I want to pay the full $50?
So again, I really encourage you to actually read the many replies to this thread and deal in real math. Reiterating the halved price like it’s a proven deal is practicing some pretty major handwaving.
Ok so then please stipulate a manner of comparing prices that is acceptable to you (percent of GDP, amount of average income per capita?), and some variables for comparing quality (Preventable deaths? Coverage? Infant mortality rate?). Once you’ve done that, check the US against some other western nations who have socialised healthcare and see what you come up with.
Anything else you would need to see added or deducted to make the result relevant to you?
My point is that correlation is not causation. Many many reasons for the price disparity and non-universal health care suggestions to remedy that issue have been posted in this thread. If you want to debate that all of those points are wrong, then I fully encourage you to find cites from economists who have studied the issue and take each assertion on. But you’ve made zero attempt to do that. You’ve simply reiterated and reiterated that UHC will half our health care costs without offering any particular evidence that you personally understand why one might think that, and especially haven’t displayed any particular attempt to read and understand any of the people have said that it’s not that simple and that the higher price is likely 95% unrelated to the universal/non-universal status of our coverage.
Where do you get this “should” stuff from? Do you have any *reason *to think that basic health care “should” suck for some people? How do you decide which people get the shaft? (I noticed that in your system, your daughter doesn’t. Why is that?)
I don’t understand how you can equate an iPod - which is not in any way necessary to sustain life- with access to medical care - which *is *necessary to sustain life. Do you genuinely not see a difference between the two?
This isn’t about some “national average of happiness.” It’s about people not suffering and dying from things we know how to treat.
I don’t mean the fancy stuff. We can start with setting broken bones. That’s pretty basic, right? But the cost of setting a broken leg would drive someone living paycheck-to-paycheck with no insurance into bankruptcy and life in a carboard box, based on what some other posters have said. That … or they just … what? Limp along till they keel over of septic shock? What would you suggest?
Let me ask all that a different way: Do you believe that access to basic medical care is a human right?
The above was a response to a specific post … but along more general lines:
Is there any reason to think that adding 47 million or however many people to our health care system wouldn’t pump some life back into certain sectors of the economy? I know doctors go through years of training, but what about all the additional nurses, physical therapists, lab techs, etc. all the way down to the receptionists and the people who wash sick people’s sheets? We’d need more of all of those people, and it seems to me that creating a whole bunch of jobs would do a little something for the national unemployment figures, no? (Not right away, not all at once … but the most sustainable growth is steady in the long-term, not in a short-term spike.)
Probably hard to crunch the numbers to predict down to the dollar years in advance … but it also seems to me that providing access to basic health care for millions of people who don’t have it would also do a little something for overall national productivity. Someone who gets sick and can’t see a doctor for proper care is likely to not be as productive as someone who is healthy because their medical problems are treated promptly. In the aggregate, over 47 million or however many people … would that not mean something?
Taxing the wealthy to fund social expenditures raises national productivity rather than lowering it. This was proven in the 1940’s. In fact, that is to some degree why taxes go up in wartime.
If we tax a fraction of Buffett’s (& Perelman’s, & the Koch brothers, etc.) net income (say, 60%), & immediately turn around & put it back into the productive classes (workers), then that income becomes more economic opportunity, which becomes more expenditure, productivity, & potential tax base.
There’s a limit on resources in the world. By definition, not everyone can get the best service. If you bust your tail working 80 hour weeks for 40 years, do you think you’ll feel like some punk who sat on his ass collecting government checks for 40 years should get in to see the doctor first?
Sure. Everyone should have access to sucky housing, sucky food, and sucky medical care.
Watch Disney’s Grasshopper and the Ant and tell me what should happen to the Grasshopper if he refuses to work for his food for the winter. Personally I’d kick his ass out the door. But the difference between that and real life is that in real life if you kick the Grasshopper out, then his kids suffer, and he goes out and sticks up convenience stores, gets addicted to drugs, and basically ends up messing up life for everyone else. Giving care to the Grasshopper even if he refuses to work is essentially just because it costs less to stick him in a dark room in the basement and thrown down bread every once in a while, reminding him that he can come up and have things which don’t suck any time he wants.
There are some caveats: People who are mentally ill can’t be blamed all that much for not being able to support themselves. Children can’t be blamed for their parents being a bum. Children should have access to proper nutrition, proper schooling, and proper health care. People who have psychological issues should have access to proper psychiatric aid and medication. People who have a physical handicap should have the tools they need to operate productively.