Print

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

[hamstersong]

I've only been able to think of one legitimate reason why the cost for America switching health care to something more like how we treat the fire department...
The amount of people employed to deal with insurance. I don't really see a point of medical insurance companies if we switched. Not only that, but I think most doctors in America employ at least one person purely to deal with insurance.

I see the largest hurdle dealing with the employment loss should we switch.
(I'm sure a company could survive that would help with other costs of sickness, like time off work. But I think that such a market wouldn't need the labor force involved in the current medical insurance market.)

As far as other arguments...they seem really flimsy. I sort of feel the same arguments were made when we switched away from residents paying fire department to put out fires prior to them putting out property fires. I'm sure the switch increased taxes, and increased the amount of property code laws to reduce fires. But I think it was worth it, and I think switching medical to similar system is worth it for the same reasons.

edit regarding wages:
I'm not too sure wages would directly suffer, actually. I think going to this system would remove the bloat that we have. Doctors in other countries get paid well enough, from what I've seen. And there will be many less people needing a wage, so those actually required for medical practice...I'm not sure if their wages would go down. Without the bloat of insurance, I almost feel that their wages might go up.
I really do feel like the problem though is...that by cutting that bloat from the system...by bloat we are referring to people's jobs, as fundamentally useless they are to actual medical practice. And we seem to have a record about doing whatever it takes to prevent loss of jobs...it seems nothing is worse in America than allowing a market to fail.

[Neonivek]

The argument of whether people should pay for medicine is more nuanced when you realize that even when you do not gain direct benefits from these changes, you are benefiting.

Everyone, even if you don't own a car, benefits from roads and highways.

Everyone benefits from hospitals even if they are a highlander and will never get sick.

In fact it is economically devastating for a town, for example, to have its hospital shut down. Typically a town will be abandoned, which has happened before as Hospitals move for richer pastures.

I see the largest hurdle dealing with the employment loss should we switch.

The HUGE issue is just how much different of a situation the US is in then any other country that developed a universal healthcare system where it tended to increase the average pay and improve quality of care.

The US health system is extremely overbloated and going to universal would very likely lead to loss of wages across the board (and doctors are already typically overworked regardless of their pay).

It would be chaos... the US isn't going to get Universal Healthcare unless they absolutely want it IMO.

The other Big problem is that the USA is so anti-tax that Universal Healthcare in the USA would probably be similar to education... On the forefront of budget cuts whenever a politician needs to win points with the public. I can ENTIRELY see the USA tanking their own dang healthcare system.

Goodness now that is an argument: "The USA isn't mature enough for Universal Healthcare"

[NullForceOmega]

"The USA isn't mature enough for Universal Healthcare"

This is not a particularly good way to phrase what you are trying to say neo.  What you want is closer to: "US politics is too self-interested for universal healthcare."

[Max™]

Any of you ever sold insurance? I went through the course to do it, but couldn't actually go through with what amounts to "screw over everyone by selling way more than anyone needs so we can make them fat stacks even if someone files for and receives compensation, beyotch!"

It is hopefully the case that this was not typical of insurance companies, but there is no way I just stumbled into the only corrupt part of this massive industry.

And as for "single payer Just Works" - you don't necessarily have to convince me personally. You have to give the general public arguments better than the ones we had with AHCA why they should ditch what we have for single payer.  And (for good or ill), in the US, saying "It works in other countries" is not a good enough argument...

The recently rammed-through-the-House-AHCA-Strikes-Back version is apparently single payer for dummies, the worst possible way to do it arguably, as it basically says "let someone else set the prices with a profit motive, and if all else fails the government will foot the bill" as if for some reason profit driven anything has ever wound up saving lives.

[Neonivek]

as if for some reason profit driven anything has ever wound up saving lives

Isn't that the current Hospital system in the US?

[Max™]

Parts of it, and our life expectancy is way down.

[NullForceOmega]

That is an unbelievably complex issue to address, between insurance costs, legal costs, and all of the myriad other issues hospitals face, 'profit' is, perchance, inaccurate.

Edit: I'm not saying that they don't make money, but the margin is not very good.

[Neonivek]

I think a less controversial statement would be: The USA should just get used to the fact that their healthcare system is screwed forever no matter what they do and get used to it.

[Max™]

That is an unbelievably complex issue to address, between insurance costs, legal costs, and all of the myriad other issues hospitals face, 'profit' is, perchance, inaccurate.

Edit: I'm not saying that they don't make money, but the margin is not very good.

Well, insurance is definitely profit driven, and it sucks here. Even if a hospital were totally non-profit it still has to make use of supplies, medicine, and such from profit driven sources.

There's no way to defend a system which has people die due to lack of cash, ruins lives from people who have pick between dying now or drowning financially, and which even the GOP thinks needs to be improved.

Yeah, there are the piece of shit freedom cocksack motherfuckers who are straight up "nah, if you're poor it's because you suck and deserve to die" but the rest generally think saying that out loud is a bad idea.

[misko27]

Well no, clearly the GOP does not think it needs to be improved, based on the recent vote in the House. Think back to how many people were just happy to just Repeal Obamacare, nevermind replacing it. It's because they are under tremendous pressure from... well basically everyone, even conservative groups were against their first bill. And even the current bill has drawn the wrath of the healthcare lobby and patient's advocate's groups (insurance groups, on the other hand, are noticeably quiet; only asking Congress to let them know what to actually expect), in addition to the obvious wrath of deficit hawks as the "deficit cutting" part of the bill continues to get watered down..

[NullForceOmega]

Oh no mistake the whole healthcare system and everything that supports it and that it touches is completely fukt.  'Fixing' it would probably have long-lasting damaging effects on the economy as a whole (tho' I couldn't care less, but the vast bulk of people very much care about their meaningless scraps of colored paper and digital representations thereof).  If such a fix were carried out the long-term benefits could very possibly outweigh the damage, but because the short-term would be so very catastrophic there is no way that anyone would actually do it.

[Rusty Shackleford]

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*

The idea is you are taxed depending on how reliant you are on the benefit you receive,

Healthy people should pay less for healthcare or insurance in the US, rightfully so, imo.

[Lord Shonus]

The profit margin on healthcare is razor thin as it is - a 2016 study found that only 45% of hospitals make more money than they spend on a per-patient basis. This is with the absolutely absurd prices charged for many services. Malpractice insurance is a big factor in jacking the prices up, but an even bigger factor is the bare-minimum nature of so many insurance providers. It is far from uncommon for a patient to go through several rounds of testing that both the hospital and patient expect to be covered, only to realize after the fact that a small loophole in the insurance contract or a slight procedural error means that none of it is covered and the patient now has to eat a four or five figure bill that they cannot afford. Patient declares bankruptcy or just lives with the ruined credit, hospital eats the loss and has to charge everyone else more to stay afloat. If the cost of treatment was just salary+supplies+treatment, the prices would be far lower.

Personally, I think a good first step is to mandate that insurance -all forms of insurance- be legally required to operate as a not-for-profit organization, with all existing companies forced to comply or be forcibly dissolved. That might just get the situation into a state where meaningful reform is possible.

[Max™]

Well DaleRusty, do we need F-22's? I mean technically yeah, air superiority and 5th gen parity matters, but this is why I am cool with the spending. Man I need to find an airshow with an F-22 around here now.

Well no, clearly the GOP does not think it needs to be improved, based on the recent vote in the House. Think back to how many people were just happy to just Repeal Obamacare, nevermind replacing it. It's because they are under tremendous pressure from... well basically everyone, even conservative groups were against their first bill. And even the current bill has drawn the wrath of the healthcare lobby and patient's advocate's groups (insurance groups, on the other hand, are noticeably quiet; only asking Congress to let them know what to actually expect), in addition to the obvious wrath of deficit hawks as the "deficit cutting" part of the bill continues to get watered down..

Oh, sorry, I meant the initial state when Obamacare was Romneycare, but even then they had to cram something through with a big heap of bullshit to get it through the House.

[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*

The idea is you are taxed depending on how reliant you are on the benefit you receive,

Healthy people should pay less for healthcare or insurance in the US, rightfully so, imo.

Which also goes into this whole dichotomy that the more you need something, the less you have access to it.

Bonus points that "Healthy" is very... tenuous. This mindset backfires on people eventually unless they have tons of money.

Reminds me of a Robot Chicken Sketch where a store owner is being forced to pay protection so to convince the owner he threatens to break something. He says the insurance will pay for it, but then he says "But can you pay the insurance premiums?".

Which to admit... going by that logic that if you pay more you deserve it the Store Owner should pay the protection money.