Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
MystBunny

Single-Payer Healthcare and other "government over-reaches"

In my last journal, a topic was brought up advocating for a free market healthcare system, under the assumption that we'd have better care with competition, supply and demand, without government tampering.. um... yeah okay maybe universal healthcare in other countries has some problems and horror stories associated with it, but the moment you tell me that we should instead have a truly free market system, you've lost me. I know it doesn't work because I've seen it not work, especially with the most lax regulation you're probably going to find anywhere else in this country. However, I'd still like to address that idea with a little of my own experience and analysis.

Obviously I'm no expert, and when it comes to how we can implement a better healthcare system, there are a lot of hypotheticals involved, although aside from second and third world countries, the only real examples of working healthcare systems we can look to for comparison are.. well, single-payer systems, because we're the only country in the "first-world" classification that doesn't have it. I'm sure there are horror stories people can point to and claim it doesn't work, but how many of us here in the US already have horror stories to tell that have affected us personally? The biggest difference is that the majority of those horror stories involve people who can't pay for basic healthcare.

"I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's healthcare"
Okay, even though I completely disagree with that, I still kinda get it, but if you've ever had a job, you already did pay for other people's health care, even before Obamacare. It's called Medicare. You already pay for it, even though you don't benefit from it now. Also, if you have insurance, you are paying for someone else's healthcare, and if you happen to need treatment, they're paying for yours, that's how insurance works. The healthy essentially pay the bills for the sick, only it's expensive and not everyone can afford it. If everyone pays a little more into Medicare, and it covers everyone.. well, I know there are still a lot of hypotheticals with that situation, and even experts disagree on specifics, so let's try a different context, one that we all know a little something about..

Where I live, there are no busses, no trains, no subways, no rails of any kind except for transport of materials and goods.. you can't even get a taxi to come out here. We don't have public transport of any kind for miles in any direction, but you know what we do have? School busses.

No matter what backwoods road you live down in my area, if you're going to school, you can always catch a ride on a school bus, and you can go to school and get a basic education. If you're poor, you can hop a bus for free and ride to school, and get a basic education. You think the bus drivers are going to turn around and kick poor students off the bus? You think the public education system, for all its flaws, will turn away a kid for a basic education because their family is poor? (Maybe they'll refuse to give the kid any food while they're there but that's another issue)

Does the public education system have flaws? Absolutely. Are there horror stories to tell about how kids are treated in public schools? Damn right there are. Now imagine someone says to you that because of these problems, we should do away with public schools and let the free market handle it. How would that sound to you? Think we'd still have school busses picking up students from every backwoods road? Think the poor families would be able to put their kids on a bus and send them to get a basic education if we had nothing but for-profit schools? Sure we might have some non-profit education systems popping up here and there, but how many kids suddenly unable to afford  to go to a for-profit school would they be able to educate, really? We'd be back in a situation where not everyone can afford to learn to read, then we'd have to find some way of addressing the literacy issue. You think our math scores are bad now, imagine how much worse they would be when only those that can afford it can learn basic math.

Yes, many schools are under-staffed, and teachers are paid shit, but we can, and should, address those problems instead of giving huge tax breaks to the ultra-wealthy. You can't just toss education to the free market and expect everything to be fine. I mean sure, maybe private schools can afford to pay their teachers more, but so can our current public education system if we actually.. you know.. do something about it. It's a problem we can address without just doing away with public education and saying "here, corporations, have at it."

So.. that being said.. despite the problems with our public education system, if we can willingly pay taxes to teach every kid in this country to read, why then can't we also pay taxes to allow them to see a fucking doctor?
Viewed: 80 times
Added: 7 years, 2 months ago
 
catprowler
7 years, 2 months ago
You know what the biggest problem to healthcare in the United States is?

Answer:  Population.  No matter what place you pick in the world that our own government or citizens tries to emulate or point out as being a better system does not have the same massive population that needs to be covered.  I find it utterly foolish when people go... Well Canada, or in France or... Blah Blah.   Think Canada would have free healthcare if they boosted their population 100x?   There is truly no answer that will work unless you can force everyone to pay including those who can't and worse those who won't pay even if they could easily do so.    

The true answer would be population decrease.... ya I did say that and it is just as likely to happen as decent health coverage for all.    Sadly all we can do is try to fight for what we can and hope it's enough.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
If Canada had 100x the population, they would have 100x the patients, but also 100x the income and taxes needed to pay for them. The per-patient cost would be exactly the same.

"There is truly no answer that will work"

Taxes. It works for roads, sewage, waste-collection, waste-disposal, protecting the peace, firefighting, education, government, defence, food safety, and a million other things that even I couldn't begin to think of, and in most every other developed nation it also works quite handily for healthcare...yet for some reason it can't work for the USA?

Whether Americans want to do it that way is another question. But rubbish to the idea that you can't do it if you wanted to.
catprowler
7 years, 2 months ago
You forget the one simple fact is that the more you add to the population the more of it that DOESN'T work or provide into taxes.   There comes a point where the paying part can no longer support the growth nor the leaching of the system. Although sadly America seems to have far to many who believe they don't or shouldn't have to pay to get what they want.

Also taxes do not work for all those things like fire, education, nor roads... once the population grows beyond the means of the taxes.   Even increasing taxes doesn't handle the situation because the increase never covers the expansion.  I'm not saying EVERYWHERE but there are many places, including where I live which has been slowly rotting out in every aspect.   I now live in one of the 10 worst cities in California and it wouldn't matter if everyone paid double taxes the schools would barely improve because they basically need to be torn down and rebuilt, same for streets,  the hospitals are barely better and most who live here believe driving over an hour away to another hospital is a better solution than actually getting treated here.   The kicker is this is becoming an increasing problem with every year that has past directly because of population.   More people, more houses, more roads, more cars, more accidents, more fires, more crimes, more kids, more elderly, more disables, and more and more and more people who believe they should have the good life like its one of life's rights.

Sorry I still would have to insist is you pumped Canada full of people... just by continuing to double the ones they have now you would eventually see breakdown because the paying class could not afford to cover the entire class.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
The number who do pay tax would increase at the same rate as the number who don't pay tax. I don't understand why you would think that increasing the population would mean that the ratio between taxpayers and non-taxpayers would change.

"Also taxes do not work for all those things like fire, education, nor roads"

They work very nicely for other countries. That America is letting its roads crumble while you spend more on your military than the next seven or eight countries combined is more an indictment of your country's implementation of tax-funded services, rather than of the concept of tax-funded services.

Again, you push on the notion that increasing population would break services. Observe:

The Democratic Republic of Musuko has a population of 100. Of that 100, 50 are employed doing things that all the 100 people need; growing food, making shoes, polishing dildos, etc. They each earn $100, and pay 50% tax, which helps support the whole community. So we have:

GDP: $5,000.
Government budget: $2,500.
50 people earning $100 each, paying $50 tax each, and receiving $25 worth of tax-funded services.
50 people earning $0 each, paying 0% tax each, and receiving $25 worth of tax-funded services.

Life is good in the DRM.

But oh no! Peeps are making babies, and some icky unwashed imgrants are moving in. The population is now 200! Panic! But...wait a second. Those extra 100 people need to eat. They need shoes. They need their dildos polished. So the economy has just doubled, and employment rises to match; extra farmers are needed, extra shoemakers, extra dildo-lickers.

So, of those new 100 people, 50 of them end up being hired or start new farms and dildo-licking boutiques.

And now the DRM looks like this:

GDP: $10,000.
Government budget: $5,000.
100 people earning $100 each, paying $50 tax each, and receiving $25 worth of tax-funded services.
100 people earning $0 each, paying 0% tax each, and receiving $25 worth of tax-funded services.

And life is still good in the DRM.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
Yes, I believe that Canada would still have single-payer if it had a 100x the population it does now, assuming that's even possible. The biggest hurdle we might face is doctors to patients ratio, but the thing is, even if we don't have enough doctors, it would STILL be better than what we have right now, what we had before, and most especially what we might have soon. Also everyone who makes money pays into medicare, and pays taxes. People can't just refuse to pay for education.
catprowler
7 years, 2 months ago
Well sadly taxes for education will never fully because they try to cover the cost of educating a single AVERAGE child and never take into the account of those that cost more or less nor the fact that covering that cost doesn't cover the upkeep, matineance, nor the issues it creates.  I know a school isn't a business but the simple fact is that it runs on money.  There is always a fixed income and never anyway to cover overages.

Massive amounts of money are spent on hospitals, upkeep, equipment and so on.  Medical breakthroughs are by far the best way to make money... sadly all that money goes to a company/persons and not to actual heathcare nor many hospitals although it sucks money out of both.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
" know a school isn't a business but the simple fact is that it runs on money.  There is always a fixed income and never anyway to cover overages.

Well we could start by not taking money AWAY from education. That would be a good start.
catprowler
7 years, 2 months ago
Agreed.

I went to school in the 80's when California Lottery was just getting going.  There was a good deal of extra funding and the schools were able to buy new books and fix buildings one could almost say it was a surplus...  Sadly the government quickly cut back what they were paying saying the lottery took care of that... Then they took more, and more.   Now people point and say how the lottery doesn't pay anything to our schools when in fact its now a major factor to actually keeping our school system open.
Yusufa
7 years, 2 months ago
I am almost in tears reading this cause this, this is exactly right. For me healthcare is the giant kick in the balls on top of everything else in my life, if i didnt have my family id be so fucked right now.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
*snugs* yeah I was the same way before I finally got Medicaid. Though I was still kinda fucked, because all me and my family could afford was temporary treatments and substandard care, certainly not the surgery I desperately needed.
Yusufa
7 years, 2 months ago
yeah, im on a similar thing now, hopefully it covers my medication decently. im scared in a few years when ill need another infusion. just, fingers crossed. Hopefully i can find a better work for me
Lapsa
7 years, 2 months ago
Yes
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
*snugs*
Lapsa
7 years, 2 months ago
*fox huggles*
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
fact ALL things like obamacare and extra administration  has done nothing but create a level between you and your doctor . and with that comes cost increase . "the whole medical insurance industry does nothing but drive up the costs and creates phony jobs. the services would be way cheaper if we all paid doctors directly .

i am totally opposed to any system that will limit my ability to go to someone and say "hey i've got money treat me " cause that is the heart of the free market.  single payer systems are the worst ideas since karl marx created socalism. another wrong headed idea.  we can talk all day about how to help others who are disadvantaged and how to help raise them up . But lets not go cutting our own throat by taking away choice from the system .

If you wanna make health care better. how about we publicly fund the medical research . cause that is the core of it all . if you think the pharmaceutical companies are looking for cures your crazy . the money is in continued treatment.  a woman doctor found a simple solution to cure diabetes 12 years ago . but diabetes is a billion dollar industry . you will never see her cure and research cause who ever funded it patted her on the head and took it .

as soon as an illness becomes treatable incentive goes away for anything further. I think we can  all understand that. There are many many promising lines of research that go nowhere cause of a lack of funding.. Private corperations do not spend their money without an expected return on investment .. WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS!!

this single issue more than any other would transform society . Public run research . to sum up . keep choice in the system . find a better way to fund the disadvantaged than single payer and make all research funding public only .

as an aside there are less and less incentives for people to study to become doctors . lawsuits , insurance and adminastrative costs are making the field increasingly unattractive. we really need to look at this problem too .how about we institute a public defender type of thing for those who need a lawyer in the medical field ?

Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
Why would you suggest creating a level between you and your researcher? Wouldn't that take away choice?
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
um there are many levels between me and a researcher . i have not direct influence. the people who privately own and pay for it do . i am just suggesting that we make that dynamic go away . with public funding the research results would need to be open to all . leading to lower costs . yes companies make the argument that they put out lots of money to find and study new drugs and such . this leads to a level of control for them and higher costs for us .

we have no choice in that dynamic. we as individuals have no choice over what is researched , the price and most importantly when to stop .

honestly that is the biggest problem with research it is agenda driven by companies that want to make a profit.
i am suggesting we stop that . if you could cure say diabetes . would you? would you be allowed to? if the goal is making people better then a change is needed. if the goal is to string them along wringing as much money out of them as possible then by all means lets keep doing what we doing. i do not advocate "the advancement of knowledge " to be free market. at least where health care is concerned.  a general funding of research will disempower the special interest.

the biggest problem i have with a single payer system for doctor care is having someone else decide who , when and if you need something done. there are many horror stories on that.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
I think I've not been clear at what I was getting at, sorry. Why do you want free market principles when it comes to your doctor, but do not want free market principles when it comes to researchers? And why do you think researchers would be so evil as to keep you sick for profit, but doctors wouldn't do the same?
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
well i suppose that could happen. i think its much more likely that a doctor got into medicine to actually help people not to keep them just ill enough that they have to keep coming back .. and the same could be said for researchers they are motivated by discovery and whatnot ..  I do not believe that the doctors preforming research all have a vested interest in keeping people sick .  only those who are paying for the doctors top be able to research . The companies that hire the researchers , they are the ones that foot the bill and own the results.. that is the problem. The companies want to maximize profits at the expense of our health . not necessarily the ones doing the research .

and we would see if there are any if we remove the privateness from the research .

it would be interesting in seeing how many doctors are actually not trying to help people .. but in order for that to happen we would need actual cures for things.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
Oh I agree that there's a profit motive for keeping people sick. Whether or not the industry acts on that motive is a question I don't feel equipped to answer.

Here's a thought for you, though; in the UK, the NHS has an incentive to treat people as cheaply and effectively as possible. Healthcare is a national expense, like any other government-funded service, and not a source of profit. They want to keep costs down and keep the voter happy and voting for their party, and they want to keep people healthy, working, and paying taxes. So their motives incentivise our doctors to give us the cheap and effective cure, rather than keep us sick and paying for expensive treatment of our symptoms.

What are your thoughts on that?
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
as long as you have the option to use your own money for a treatment of your choice . i am not opposed to that.

I think most people can agree when it come to things like healthcare , that getting people healthy should be the goal , not making others rich or adding extra layers that cause delay or what not .

my objection is that very often in these systems , even if you have the money you are not allowed , by law, to goto a doctor and pay for their services. too often these systems are just a means for getting control over people.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
We do. Private healthcare exists alongside the NHS here. You can even choose to get treatment in a private hospital, but have it paid for by the NHS, in a lot of situations.

There is literally nothing stopping me from going to a private doctor and paying directly if I wanted to. Or I can go to an NHS doctor (and I'm able to choose my doctor; it's not chosen for me) and have it paid for by National Insurance (tax).

Just like how you can send your kid to a state school, or pay to send them to a private school instead. Exact same system.

Whatever system you're talking about where you're prevented from seeing a private doctor...it's not our system. I couldn't say which, if any, other countries work like that.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
Dude, please stop listening to this propaganda demonizing socialism. I'm not suggesting in any capacity that we need to become the Soviet Union. Here are a few examples of Socialism we already have.

A taxpayer funded Military? Socialism
Tax funded highways and roads? Socialism
Libraries? Socialism
Police? Socialism
Fire Department? Socialism
College grants? Socialism
Social Security? Well that one even has "Social" in the name
The VA? Socialism
Public Parks? Socialism
Food Stamps? Socialism
Our courts? Socialism
Publicly funded zoos? Socialism
9-1-1? Socialism
Unemployment? Socialism
Public transport? Socialism
Street lighting? Socialism
Customs and Border protection? Yes that's socialism
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
ok socialism can best be summed up with the phrase by karl marx "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need "  the core of this means we are working for others and not ourselves. if we were to give to each according to his need who is gonna pay for it?

so lets look at your list. food stamps and social security are the only two that are truly socialist .
everything else is a service or such that we instituted and help pay for from our taxes.

here are marx's 10 points for creating a socialist country . http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html
this is also an interesting read. http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm

The problem with socialism at its core is that people don't wanna take care of others who may not deserve it . you need to work for what you get in life.. those advocating that we just give things away to people ... well that is nonsense.
if you wanna house work for it . you want to eat work for it . one's goal should be to not mooch off of others.

i just moved out of a place cause my roommates were pot smoking retards with no respect. i was there 3 years and recently took on roommates to help pay the bills. they used all my stuff, food, plates , toilet paper. etc etc. I am not working my life away to fund other people's lifestyles. so i moved out.. they will have to find a way to pay for everything or get kicked out.. that is life.

I am sorry if you find my support of capitalism and those ideals onerous.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
I'm not denouncing capitalism, but if capitalism controls everything, it will fail. Same with Socialism. If it controls everything, it will fail. All of those things I mention are in fact things that everybody benefits from even if they can't pay into it with taxes, socialism even by your own definition there. Should those not paying taxes not have a firetruck sent to their home when it's on fire? Should 9-1-1 operators just hang up the phone if they find out the caller doesn't have a job?
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
in a broad sense services can have a casual link to socialist ideals. i think however that the difference lies in not that everyone benfits from those service but rather they way we choose to institute them .

for example before they had police forces , people would hire private security services, and services like the Pinkertons.
the problem was just that poor people often did not have the means for justice.  

i guess that philosophically things like services were decided upon by the populace and deemed necessary for a higher ideal .
things like justice for all cant be accomplished if we don't have general funding for it.

so yeah in those areas we have to ask ourselves do we want  justice for a price ? capitalism does not lead to equality in these cases.

i think that is the real dynamic of removing an ideal from the free market and elevating it to a basic service for all .
and this process is dynamic and ever growing and changing. the only thing is how do we pay for it all?

pure capitalism in the market place for like , goods and services like the plumber is a good thing.
we all get up every day motivated to try to get ahead. imagine if everyone had a car and a house and 3 tvs and etc etc. there would be no one to work to make the things.  actually they way we are going trying to automate everything... there will be tons of people with no jobs in the not to distant future.. how will they earn a living?

anyways my point was that health care should be one of those higher ideals. and that to make the most effective change would be to remove the private interest in development of new treatment .
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
Well.. yeah I think you're making all of my points for me now. =P I think really the only point you seem to be contesting is that we can have our cake and eat it too.
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
i guess my point is in many single payer systems control over your life is left to a bureaucratic system .  i would not want to be in a system were i am told you cant have this treatment cause blank or anything along those lines. there is nothing wrong with the idea of multiple payer systems. multiple payer systems limit control which i think is a good thing.  i think we can create a system that allows freedom for all with a high ideal of making care a basic service.

nothing we have now resembles that. and we constantly have to oppose those who would seek to control us... sometimes no matter the cost.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
We're already in a system that tells you you can't have treatment because of blank. Just in many cases the blank is not being rich. I'd rather we re-defined that blank.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
"actually they way we are going trying to automate everything... there will be tons of people with no jobs in the not to distant future.. how will they earn a living?"

Hopefully, they won't need to. If everything you need is effectively free, then you don't need an income. Ultimately, money really only measures man-hours. If man-hours are free (robots), then money disappears. In my view, mass-unemployment should be the goal, not the bogeyman; rephrase it as "people who no-longer need to labour to satisfy their needs".

But we're talking about the Star Trek world, here, where people don't have to work, and what little work is needed is comfortably covered by those who want to work for reasons other than money.

Obviously, things will never work out as simple and idealistic as that. But I think we're getting there. Getting over the transitional hump will be a doozy though. Universal Basic Income is an interesting idea that might get us through it; those who can't/won't work are given enough to support an average lifestyle, supported by those who can/want to work for a better-than-average lifestyle.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
"the core of this means we are working for others and not ourselves."

Your life-circumstances can and will change throughout your life. Today you may be the one working to pay for others. Tomorrow, you may be the one being paid for by others.

"The problem with socialism at its core is that people don't wanna take care of others who may not deserve it"

Yes, they do. Why else do you think we built systems like this in the first place? We live in democracies. We CHOSE to do this. We WANT to take care of each-other. People who don't want to take care of others who may not deserve it don't then create huge national infrastructure that does exactly that.
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
no not all of us do and we try to make changes. and i don't agree with every thing that is force upon us. nor will i subsidize slacker disrespectful roomies . i don't care what happens to them .  Honestly there is a huge idea rift in america right now and we will see another civil war in the near future.
Musuko42
7 years, 2 months ago
Honestly, compared to the amount your country spends on defence, worrying about how much you're paying to support some slackers is rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. In 2015 you spent $601,000,000,000 on defence. If you cut that by just 20%, you could pay every single unemployed person in your country (7,800,000 people currently) $15,410 a year, and still leave you miles ahead of any other country on earth in terms of defence spending.

(figures from Google, so consider them pretty rough).
Lapsa
7 years, 2 months ago
If you can sum any ideology in a single sentence you don't understand that ideology. You read Das Kapital?
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
Well after poking into it all a bit more.. America is culturally built to oppose it. It's a beautiful mix of hope and stupidity. As they say, "There are no poor people in America, just millionaires down on their luck." At their core, most people genuinely believe that they can somehow find that one glorious thing that will catapult them into the 1%. Sure, it's never going to happen otherwise it wouldn't be the lowest single digit possible, but they have to dream. And when they get there, they don't want any dirty poor people sucking the life out of them. The ALREADY Rich are so culturally disconnected with the masses that they may as well be classified as a separate species. The only way you're getting anything out of them is if they desperately need to virtue signal.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
Not to mention, the corporate bailouts, The Walstreet bailouts.. WE paid for that. They don't want us using their tax money to get healthcare, but at the same time they're lobbying to TAKE our money all the time just to increase their profits. 14 trillion dollars to walstreet to fix a crash THEY caused.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
Well, in their defense, if you could make the government give you EVERYONE'S money at the drop of a hat.. wouldn't you? Seriously.. What would you do for a billion dollars? What WOULDN'T you do?
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
Yeah that's what regulation is supposed to be preventing.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
... Why would it? The government is mostly a subsidiary of several corporations and major banks. If anything, I'm amazed the regulations were even able to make it to PAPER. There's no way in hell they'd be enforced.
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
i totally hated the corporate bailouts. companies need to fail on their own merits
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
Which is true. But when they're the real force behind the government, guess who never gets to die?
Soulfire
7 years, 2 months ago
i think the bailouts should have at least come with a mass firing of the people at the top .. they the ones that created the problems in the first place. that would have been a fun wake up call.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
Who are the ones directly funding the campaigns and buying the congressmen. And the only ones who get to directly dictate what goes on in the US government. So Of COURSE they get a free pass.
Lapsa
7 years, 2 months ago
Well that sounds like communism to me.
Stumpycoon
7 years, 2 months ago
Public health care provides a source of competition and makes the 'free market' approach of private health care actually work.  Without public health care the logical free market economic model is "people need health care, they don't have a choice therefore demand is infinite and we can charge as much as we want".  

And there are not 'problems and horror stories' in countries with public health care.  That is popular propaganda by people trying to justify opposing a public health care system in the USA.  If you take a look you will see no country is going under due to public health care, their quality of care is higher and their costs (for private health care) are much lower than in the USA.  Meanwhile the USA is ranked in the mid thirties for national health care, all of the nations with public health care are above the USA, and the USA is not even the highest ranked country (for health care) without public health care.  

By the way, this means you're paying the most per capita for health care and what you are getting isn't in the top thirty...I would love to see some of the public health care opponents justify the USA's situation with economic or free market arguments.  "Yeah we want to pay the most, but don't want to buy one of the top thirty products"...tough sell there.

Also public health care is also the logical 'fiscal conservative' option.  If you have a trained and able bodied worker (and consumer and tax payer) then the best economic option is to return them (affordably) to the workforce (and consumer pool and tax revenue supply).

As for the callous and selfish argument of "i don't want to pay for someone else's health care", well they aren't they are paying for their own.  And everyone uses health care at some point.  Having public health care means the private health care costs go way way way down.  So when that person does eventually go in to the doctor or hospital they are paying way less.  I am routinely shocked by medical procedure costs in the USA, there are simple things (like a MRI scan or pathology work) that are more expensive than cars in the USA.  Here it's rare to pay over $1000 for any thing, and if I had a broken arm and needed an X-ray I would not need to wait weeks to get it and have it cost me months worth of wages.

Health care in the USA is insane, and a global joke.

Here in Australia for example, the cost for me to have private health insurance is nearly paid off by the tax offset I get for having private health insurance.  Due to public health care, private health care is so affordable in Australia that I have it as a tax offset...let that sink in for a moment.  I have only used my private health insurance once, for an elective procedure.  Conversely I have had life saving preventative procedures under public health care (removing a developing skin cancer)...then went on to join the work force and 'pay for other people's health care' as a tax payer.  Other than the literal pre-cancerous skin off my back...no skin off my back.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
The fact that private healthcare wouldn't go away with public healthcare available is something I hadn't actually thought about much, since I can't afford private insurance at all, but yeah we see it with our schools. Private schools still exist and make profit despite the public system, after all.

edit: Also to be clear, the "horror stories" I was talking about before were more the individual hardships brought up as arguments against public healthcare. My point is, I think we have a lot more individual hardships to throw at them, and we don't have to look very far for an example.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
Though that will give us Rich Care and Poor Care... Poor care keeps you ALIVE... as long as you're useful. Rich Care keeps you HEALTHY and has all the perks. Like once we eventually figure out organ cloning and such.
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
If that were true, it would still be better than what we have now, which is rich care and no care, or almost no care, and rich schools aren't all better than public schools.
Stumpycoon
7 years, 2 months ago
A valid concern but one that in practice does not happen.  Or not to anything like the dystopian extreme you suggest.

Just take a look at countries with public health care.  You have a few dozen examples to choose from.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
*chuckles* Eh, I'm just an extreme governmental pessimist. I honestly expect them to start having orphan meat feasts up there at any moment. *pokes a coon nose*
MystBunny
7 years, 2 months ago
It's.. kinda hard not to be a pessimist at this point, that's for sure.
MarcusKoopa
7 years, 2 months ago
*laughs softly* Oh hon.. it's just STARTING. Pray to whatever you hold dear there isn't another major disaster or you'll REALLY see our government start shitting itself.
mouse24
7 years, 1 month ago
Healthcare and education has been basically been turned into shackles by the party empower. While its true they want able body workers, smart workers are just more trouble than there worth. Expensive healthcare also serves to keep them working and from complaining about working conditions, he DuPont C-8 incident is proof of this point.
MystBunny
7 years, 1 month ago
I'm not sure what you mean, but it is true that most employers don't like to keep people around who are smart enough to know when they're being screwed, or that know and don't keep their mouths shut.
mouse24
7 years, 1 month ago
Sorry, tied to get a bit short hand with it. Basically my point was that cuts the to education and attempts to limit health care to the poor are basically acting as type populaces control. Its long standing historical pattern. Examples of this can seen as early as the middle ages when the church and government(at the time, there no real difference) used the clergy who could read and had them  either instill loyalty, or control contracts. Basically having people make legal agreements and having no real to read the contracts for themselves, cause at this point only royalty and clergy could read. This practice has been expanded as history progressed. Now employers and politicians can not only dupe the under educated, but can threaten there lively hood. Medical coverage being first threats issued. If you cant make them want to work for you threaten there family well being indirectly. Like many people working for DuPont co. after all nasty side effects C-8 surfaced(a chemical that stays in the body for years and causes 6 types of known aggressive cancer) they still had work for them in order to afford there health care to treat problems caused by the company. Essentially hostages by proxy. Sorry if it is hard to follow. in trying condense a parent of historical events into every short space,
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.