Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wobbly]

Well if you're talking about the health system it's not just 1 country using a single payer system, it's a lot of different countries. Bit of a stretch to say it wouldn't work for American, unless your talking about "it wont work because of the political attitudes in America".

[Lord Shonus]

It would be more accurate to say that none of the existing systems is likely to work in the US exactly as it exists in the country currently using it, because every country is different in certain fundamental ways and you have to take those differences into account. The number of countries using such systems proves that they work, but it would take time to figure out how best to implement them here even if you can get the political mandate to do so from both major voting blocs.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yeah, single payer (government pays for health-care) could work if the US government just raised another trillion dollars in tax revenue, OR it mandated a law, broke several laws in putting that law into place, then it called up all it's federal agents, soldiers, police and ect and physically seized the assets of hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, ect, uso that a federal entity could administer these enterprises and have absolute monopoly over the entire industry.

Guess which is actually constitutional and politically possible?

If you guessed either answer you are wrong.

So Obamacare/Trumpcare or a similar system is the really the best only way that universal access to healthcare can be done in the USA. It makes sense for the USA.

[Starver]

Scandinavian country of 5mil and oil..?  Must be talkin' about Norway.  Mental health and lifestyle threats (e.g. smoking/(over)drinking, though not as bad as others) seems to be a big issue, for them, and the challenges of the recent Folkehelseloven introduction probably cannot be fully assessed yet.  But they also do well (but could do better) in keeping healthcare unversally high in quality.

Anyway, Canada is a true Single Payer system (also Taiwan).

Spoiler: And they seem to be doing something more right than the US. (click to show/hide)

Which is not to say that there's an easy (or popularly desired) pathway between US-as-it-is-now and US-with-idealised-wholly-new-utopian-replacement-system.  But good luck, anyway. And I suspect that TrumpCare of (whatever form) is at best a diversion, if not entirely starting off in the wrong direction.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Scandinavian country of 5mil and oil..?  Must be talkin' about Norway.  Mental health and lifestyle threats (e.g. smoking/(over)drinking, though not as bad as others) seems to be a big issue, for them, and the challenges of the recent Folkehelseloven introduction probably cannot be fully assessed yet.  But they also do well (but could do better) in keeping healthcare unversally high in quality.

Anyway, Canada is a true Single Payer system (also Taiwan).

Spoiler: And they seem to be doing something more right than the US. (click to show/hide)

Which is not to say that there's an easy (or popularly desired) pathway between US-as-it-is-now and US-with-idealised-wholly-new-utopian-replacement-system.  But good luck, anyway. And I suspect that TrumpCare of (whatever form) is at best a diversion, if not entirely starting off in the wrong direction.

Canada has 10% of the population of the USA and it's also slightly wealthier and frankly Canadians are not as disgustingly unhealthy as most Americans.

Also, okay, so law says the gov't has to treat any patients at any cost. They will quickly devise laws telling Americans they can't do anything unhealthy or anything that might actually result in them using this """free""" healthcare system

So, 700% excise taxes on your burgers and soda and cigarettes and alcohol and whatever else. Probably ban any activity like motorcycling or ATVing or anything they think might cause trauma.

Cause the USA is gonna balance it's budget, at some point in history. No way will it do that if Americans live lives destined for expensive medical treatment and don't pay that much for taxes.

So idk if Americans like their freedom or the idea of subsidized costs for healthcare more. I'm pretty sure most Americans will prefer the former.

[PTTG??]

Your idea of "freedom" is slavery to the wealthy.

[wobbly]

Yeah, single payer (government pays for health-care) could work if the US government just raised another trillion dollars in tax revenue...

yep most countries pay for their public health insurance through a tax. The point being the extra tax is less then it'd cost in insurance premiums for the same coverage.

... , OR it mandated a law, broke several laws in putting that law into place, then it called up all it's federal agents, soldiers, police and ect and physically seized the assets of hospitals, insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, ect, uso that a federal entity could administer these enterprises and have absolute monopoly over the entire industry.

Guess which is actually constitutional and politically possible?

If you guessed either answer you are wrong.

So Obamacare/Trumpcare or a similar system is the really the best only way that universal access to healthcare can be done in the USA. It makes sense for the USA.

??
Pretty sure you can create a public health system without doing any of those things.

So, 700% excise taxes on your burgers and soda and cigarettes and alcohol and whatever else. Probably ban any activity like motorcycling or ATVing or anything they think might cause trauma.

So it's this kind of BS, that makes people say look at countries that already have a public health system. That way we can discuss reality, rather then fantasy.

[Neonivek]

Your idea of "freedom" is slavery to the wealthy.

Isn't that what America has always been about? That regular people are too stupid, too whimsy to REALLY look out for their own interests... and that it is up to the rich and powerful to look out for them.

I mean that is why we have the Electoral College. So someone chosen by the people couldn't get in without the current government's say so.

In fact you used to not even be able to vote unless you were a wealthy land owner.

[Starver]

Canada has 10% of the population of the USA

10% of the people needing treatment, you mean, so 10% of the costs? But then also 10% of the people able to support the treatment costs thus (all else being equal) 10% of the funding.  There are much more significant factors than that (and economies of scale would be against Canada being more efficient). Or you maybe have a different point...

and it's also slightly wealthier and frankly Canadians are not as disgustingly unhealthy as most Americans.

Details that are relevant, if correct, but then demands further more specific questions as to why Americans are poorer and Canadians are healthier.  Someone seems not to be doing it right, and I somehow don't think it's those in the land of the maple leaf...

[Neonivek]

Canada has 10 times less population than the US... but has 10 times more inconvenient barriers to our infrastructure.

And if you have 10 times more population, you also have 10 times the amount of money... and if you have 10 times the amount of population density you typically have 10 times the amount of infrastructure to deal with the population density.

Having a lot of land gives you a lot of conveniences but don't for a second believe it is a magic wand that poofs away all of Canada's problems.

[Starver]

(aside: hate the phrasing "10 times less".  Consider what "1 time less" could possibly mean, as to why... (Never mind whether it should be "fewer", which is a different issue of pedantry on some occasions!) But please don't let this distract you.)

[sluissa]

Anyway, Canada is a true Single Payer system (also Taiwan).

If I understand Canada's system correctly. (Which I admit I might not.) It's not TRUE "single payer." Each province has their own system set up to handle health care in one manner or another. The Canadian national government provides a significant portion of the costs of this, but each province is required to pitch in and each manages it (within the confines of some regulation structure) to be their own design. So rather than single payer you've got... 11+ payer system... depending on how territories are managed.

But that's sort of a technicality thing. Just saying...

[Rusty Shackleford]

Canada has 10% of the population of the USA

10% of the people needing treatment, you mean, so 10% of the costs? But then also 10% of the people able to support the treatment costs thus (all else being equal) 10% of the funding.  There are much more significant factors than that (and economies of scale would be against Canada being more efficient). Or you maybe have a different point...

and it's also slightly wealthier and frankly Canadians are not as disgustingly unhealthy as most Americans.

Details that are relevant, if correct, but then demands further more specific questions as to why Americans are poorer and Canadians are healthier.  Someone seems not to be doing it right, and I somehow don't think it's those in the land of the maple leaf...

The demographic data of the USA, Mexico and Canada are well documented. I won't spell it out for you.

Regardless, Americans won't stand for a 'fat tax' or any other disincentive that places a burden on their lifestyle choices, especially not at a federal level. Politically impossible.

Taxes in the US are supposedly representative by law. So a good example are road and infrastructure taxes that are levied on vehicle registrations and taxes on fuel. Makes sense. Why should you pay for crazy highway projects if you don't own a motor vehicle?

That US legal precedent would not work for healthcare.

If you choose to have unhealthy habits you should be the sole bearer of the price down the road. Its not the style of US law to demand an intentionally fit and young college student to assume to financial liablity of an obese alcoholic old woman needing a 3rd kidney transplant.

So naturally, either the tax is unjust, or the tax places a premium on whatever the government deems is something that puts people in the hospital in order to make it equitiable.

So the country is run by safetycrats and a nannystate saying you need to pay extra for a bottle of wine because some degenerate got fat and expensely ill when all he did was drink wine.

[Neonivek]

Why should you pay for crazy highway projects if you don't own a motor vehicle?

Because you eat food, live in a building, enjoy your electricity, and likely take public transportation?

It is estimated that the average American meal travels about 1500 miles to get from farm to plate.

So, yeah... If you don't own a motor vehicle you gain absolutely NO benefit from roads. *sarcasm*

[Starver]

So car owners pay for roads uniformly (prior to fuel tax costs, which are low enough anyway), regardless of how far they drive. Or might end up having to drive, regardless of the state of repair.

Everybody (more or less) is living, and nobody knows how much potentially difficult living they might have to do in future.

(Ninjaed, whilst wrestling with the keyboard...)