Universal / National Health Care Insurance

Have you seen how our government does procurement?

Go on and hold your breath for that one.

And? Because not only have I seen how the government does procurement, I've also seen how the private sector does it. Ain't none of them anything to write home about. Giant corporations get away with doing all kinds of stupid shit simply because the volume of money that they have pouring in means that they don't have to worry if they're blowing it on stuff that is pointless. There is a chance that the market will eventually catch up with them, but there's no guarantee that this will ever happen. Meanwhile, if the government spends too much money on healthcare, the number of people who die because they can't afford to see a doctor goes down. How does that compare to Blockbuster dying because they weren't able to figure out streaming services before their creditors pulled the plug?

I mean, seriously dude, if I have to choose between a private sector company not caring if someone lives or dies so long as the company has a fatter bottom line, or someone getting to see a doctor that they might not otherwise be able to do so without the US government picking up the tab, I'm opting for someone seeing the doctor. I mean, seriously, if your life is on the line, do you care who can profit off of it (if anyone) so long as you get to see a doctor and get treatment?

FTFY

In the meantime, you can also research Wendell Potter, the guy who made a career on this kind of misinformation, at the behest of the medical insurance companies:

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/27/8843...-executive-praises-canadas-health-care-system

Is that the options being presented, or is it greater overall coverage as a tradeoff for some of us paying more and experiencing slightly diminished service?

Can you guarantee nobody will experience such things as a result?

It sounds like you're okay by subsidizing other countries by paying more.

Nope. I've become a neutral observer on such things. I cannot alter the outcome, and those who can, do not care what I think.

Where has that stopped you before?

That seems to be very similar to the bill for my surgery when I was in high school. I was under government coverage and the negotiated price was way less than the actual cost. We didn't have to pay anything. This was the low cost, out of date, hospital in the area that could provide base care I needed.

QFT.

Even worse, there's been study after study after study that prove America's current health care system is vastly more inefficient and expensive on a per capita basis than countries with universal health care.

But still, Yankees be like

No we be like this is a slippery slope lined by strawmen leading to socialism.

Before you know it, long lines to get your allowance of aborted fetus at the butcher.

No.

But I can put forward that those people would represent a tiny minority and you wouldn't be one of them.

The criteria is deliberately framed to be impossible to meet.

Read: To preempt weasely bullshitters trying to slide "Your fair share is MORE, comrade" under the radar.

"I don't care if it make life massively better for millions of people; I won't support it unless you can demonstrate that there is absolutely zero possibility that it will ever cause me even the tiniest amount of personal inconvenience in any way."

NOW you're getting it!

I don't believe you.

OK, so I might exaggerate my position a bit, but I do find it contemptible and dishonest to cheer lead for something as an improvement for society while dismissively hand-waving away any compromises or sacrifices any individual might have to endure, if those are acknowledged at all. Societies are composed of individuals, and if you're resting on the presumption that it is perfectly reasonable to demand someone "take one for the team," they can either disclose that openly or I will view them with deserved suspicion as a consequence of their dishonesty. People gloss over inconvenient details, and it cannot be un-seen.

Yeah, try again:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...e-gonzalez-big-pharma-knockout-punch-1171735/

$2.45B in R&D. $50B in stock buybacks.

You can't defend that shit. I mean, you can try, but it means you're scum.

Society comprises of a LOT of individuals and this is a proven way to have a net benefit.

No one is forced to rely on nationalised healthcare. On the contrary private healthcare here is exemplary for most purposes, way above and beyond that currently practised by most providers in the USA, precisely because they have to compete with something which is already world class and free to use.

So you have a effectively quite tiny (and it is tiny compared to your insurance) increase in taxation for a disproportionately huge improvement for millions of individuals, whilst those who want private care can still access it and benefit from the impact of harsher competition in the market.

Not defending anything, and I didn't say they had to do it that way, only that it's hilarious to entertain the possibility that they will voluntarily tolerate making less money.

But someone who preferred their private plan would have to pay for that on top of their mandatory contribution to the nationalized health care scheme. So it's "Do it our way, or take it in the ass." Being deprived of choices against my will, for someone else's benefit, will never sit well with me.

It's not hilarious at all. It's quite horrific, in fact.

But then that's the issue with capitalism. We could make a BIT less money and not fuck our customers over. I mean, none of us actually NEEDS a third house or another sports car... Nah.

How many people are currently being deprived of choices, being made bankrupt and dying taking "one for the team"?

How many people have no viable choices available to them at all?

Either way someone loses out, but the current system has a lot of people losing out to a life changing (hell, ending) extent. The alternative is far, far, fewer people losing out in terms of a percentage point on their tax bill.

Can you honestly say the former is preferable?

Which is exactly why the idea they'd charge less here as they make do much in the US falls short.

The end goal will always be to maximise profits, not settle for getting halfway there.

Through forcible regulatory intervention, or their own lack of means? That distinction matters to me.

To me, being given a choice is always preferable, even if the options are not palatable or do not serve the largest number of people.

Both.

Many people are paying for insurance and still being made bankrupt by the cost of actually receiving treatment.

Likewise many are unable to access decent healthcare because their illness by definition makes them unable to work and enjoy the treatment which might see them recover.

Here's a catch for you though.

The free market works on the basis of competition.

Competition improves products and reduces prices.

What impact would introducing a massive, insanely cheap high quality rival have on your own insurer?

The smart vote would be in favour of nationalised healthcare even if you aren't intending to use it, because merely having it there in play increases competition for the private providers you might use instead.

I don’t think anyone intends to be dishonest in that it will require some adjustment. I know when I speak of such things, it’s with the assumption that everyone can reasonably expect some level of inconvenience at the start. To expect everything to be “pain free” is, in my opinion, unreasonable.

Those that choose now not to have insurance would be insured, and their Medicare tax will be higher.

Employers that don't pay for employee insurance will pay more in Medicare tax.

Everyone else will have better coverage, lower out-of-pocket and job mobility. Employers that today fund insurance can give everyone a raise.

The insurance industry will be decimated. Jobs will be lost. Dr's offices will no longer need insurance clerks to process claims.

Sounds good to me.

Naturally.

Everything change has it's drawbacks, what is crucial is ensuring that the drawbacks don't prevent genuine progress.

Without making choices that impacted possible choices you would have no trainlines, no highways, no laws which restrict people's harmful actions, no cities.

All of these things have, in some manner adversely affected someone, somewhere.

An argument could be made not all of those changes were for the better but would many people choose to go back?