|
Leperflesh posted:Is your mother contemplating not going to get her cancer treated because of the commute?
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
No personal offense to Craptacular's mother, but thousands of people are dying of preventable illnesses because of lack of single-payer health care. While your mother's cancer is tragic and she deserves everything medical technology has to offer, her difficult-to-prevent/treat disease isn't really the thing that Medicare-for-all is trying to solve. On the financial side of the coin, your mother's cancer is exactly what single-payer health care wants to solve - medical bankruptcies after live-saving treatment. If so many more people have real access to (read: are able to afford) life-saving technologies that there aren't enough machines to save them all, that's a better situation than having the machines sit idle and let people die because insurance companies and hospitals are greedy. Rationing care is a heartbreaking organizational failure, but it's better than just having people die in ditches who we don't even try to save.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:No personal offense to Craptacular's mother, but thousands of people are dying of preventable illnesses because of lack of single-payer health care. While your mother's cancer is tragic and she deserves everything medical technology has to offer, her difficult-to-prevent/treat disease isn't really the thing that Medicare-for-all is trying to solve. On the financial side of the coin, your mother's cancer is exactly what single-payer health care wants to solve - medical bankruptcies after live-saving treatment. It's also a vastly easier problem to address. "We need to order 40 more cancer machines ASAP" can be handled by a single budgetary decision. Expansion of facilities, educational programs, hiring rates, etc.; all problems that every organization, both private and public, handle regularly as an ordinary course of doing business. The huge, glaring obstacle we face today is just getting everyone to recognize and understand that supplying health care to everyone in the country - regardless of the mechanism we use to do it - makes us all much better off and costs us all less money than the current situation, even if the less-money-it-costs-us shows up as a tax rather than a payroll deduction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2018 22:48
|
|
|
I don’t understand the hard on for single payer, multi payer systems like they have in most of the non English speaking developed world cost less than single payer and deliver better outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 09:02
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Are not for profit hospitals, and publicly owned hospitals, a thing that already exists? Because I wasnt opposed to either, just opposed to monopoly on them. Meaning Id rather Canada than NHS. cedars sinai in beautiful beverly hills overbills the gently caress out of me and my family and were rich jews. privatized healthcare (be it provider, insurer, or any fool on the chain) is so insanely ssstupid it blowss my loving mind that anyone who can type can think anything otherwise. it absolutely needs to be ssingle payer, with the feds negotiating prices in the interest of the peeps. a big boss in the room to go to bat for her people. you are loving EXPLODING my cranium rn ya lemme shop for the best provider while im having a loving heart attack lmfao. ya i think ill pass on this procedure and DIE. LOL. loving lol. loving LMFAO. Good to go bankrupt in order to live. gently caress off bitch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I dont understand the hard on for single payer, multi payer systems like they have in most of the non English speaking developed world cost less than single payer and deliver better outcomes. a single payer system is required to tend to our most needy, those who are least able to help themselves. those with the means are always welcome to seek out of band solutions which will of course be present and continue to thrive with similar revenue streams as they enjoy today. Read the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 10:01
|
|
|
the fact is the, the corporate medical industry is grinding the poor into paste and Killing People In Droves. They are immoral, murderous vampires who must be forced out of our society. In a future with single payer, I will still have perfect, cosmetically enhanced teeth that blind the camera, but my neighbor won't be toothless, miserably slurping apple sauce from a packet he got a the food bank. Capiche? That's dental, but I thought the allegory was more effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure you don't need to worry about Republicans sabotaging a government health monopoly. Any version of America where such a thing was able to be implemented uniformly is one where Republicans have already been annihilated as a party. You'd have to do it over their literal actual dead bodies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 14:16
|
|
|
The republicans could sabotage the new thing! Better give in to their demands and let them continue sabotaging the old thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I don’t understand the hard on for single payer, multi payer systems like they have in most of the non English speaking developed world cost less than single payer and deliver better outcomes. Single player is simple. It's easy to explain to people, it's universal. This is the only kind of social program that has proven to stand the test of time in America. Social Security and Medicare are the most popular government programs of all time, even after decades of concerted effort by the right to undermine them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Some of these responses are absurdly over the top, cool your tits. Someone having a slightly different political opinion who is being open about their personal experience which might be influencing it doesn’t deserve responses like this. If your default response to someone with basically identical ideological leanings but a slight difference of opinion is scorching the earth and being an rear end in a top hat you’re probably not going to get much done. Craptacular! posted:Are not for profit hospitals, and publicly owned hospitals, a thing that already exists? Because I wasn’t opposed to either, just opposed to monopoly on them. Meaning I’d rather Canada than NHS. Do you mean in the US? Because in the US those two types of hospital are pretty much the same in practice and do very little to change the overall hosed structure of our healthcare. Eg either way they’re stuck with the same hospital - insurer dynamic which is going to lead to very expensive care. I don’t think most people would even know which their hospital is. To be clear, both Canada and the UK are single payer healthcare systems. Single payer just means that the government pays for a basic level of healthcare. You could have the government also run hospitals, as in the UK, or not, as in Canada. Realistically any US single payer system would in all likelihood mirror Canada’s, not the UK’s. I don’t think there is any way that politically or practically the US will get to the NHS. You’d still be able to get treatments above and beyond what is offered as the default under your single payer plan, so things like experimental cancer treatment could still be available. They just might be more expensive or require you to get separate additional insurance. Usually this doesn’t come up with stuff like cancer treatment. Eg In a lot of places in Canada vision and dental require separate plans, and almost everywhere cosmetic surgery isn’t covered. I understand the concern about Republican lawmakers loving you, but pushing for a single payer system doesn’t mean pushing for a single payer system even if it’s insanely lovely. Part of the political work involved in getting single payer would have to be getting clearly defined standards of care etc. The public health and $$ benefits of the system are big enough that it is worth it imo to do the organizing/activism to get it implemented.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 17:50
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:This was my position on it a decade ago. But the political reality of this country IMO makes those systems not feasible here. The way non-single payer UHC systems tend to work is with heavy regulation, including a prohibition on profit for basic coverage. They are too susceptible to being undercut over time, not to mention they leave private insurance companies intact to lobby for looser restrictions. They are more complex and thus more difficult to explain to voters and campaign on. Health care is already highly regulated in this country though. I don’t see that as a major blocker. We already got people accustomed to Obamacare and multi payer is easily implemented within that framework with a few tweaks. That was kind of the point of Obamacare. Multi payer also keeps everyone’s healthcare from being hosed with during a Republican Congress. If the feds pay for everyone’s healthcare good luck getting coverage for, say, gender reassignment. Whereas if states still have some kind of role at least non lovely states can make sure their local insurance organizations cover that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Health care is already highly regulated in this country though. I don’t see that as a major blocker. We already got people accustomed to Obamacare and multi payer is easily implemented within that framework with a few tweaks. That was kind of the point of Obamacare. Convoluted healthcare for non lovely states, what a sad goal. Perhaps instead of viewing healthcare as an isolated projects for coastal states, we could build a 50 state party on the basis of principles, run Republicans out on a rail, and address a broad range of issues for everyone?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:03
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Health care is already highly regulated in this country though. I don’t see that as a major blocker. We already got people accustomed to Obamacare and multi payer is easily implemented within that framework with a few tweaks. That was kind of the point of Obamacare. Single payer is simple, and changes things for everyone (no more premiums or copays). Once it's up and running, it becomes much more difficult to roll back because it's highly popular. You'd have everyone screaming "don't take away my Medicare" not just old people. Again, just look at how much difficulty the GOP has had in undercutting Medicare. Hell, they passed a prescription drug coverage program for it under a Republican administration! bawfuls fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jul 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
It's very easy to start a medical business under single payer, because the government says "here's what we pay for these procedures, and here's the areas we subsidize." Look at those numbers, can you make a profit? No? Then don't do it. Enough people don't do it, government ups the subsidies until people enter the market. You don't have to spend three months of every year cutting deals with every loving insurance company, all of whom are multi-billion dollar companies who want to squeeze the ever-loving poo poo out of you so they can keep all the member money they're getting. (I vastly simplified this but the core point is - being a healthcare provider involves lots of time spent haggling with insurance entities rather than, you know, doing healthcare stuff) btw if you think the government subsidizing certain areas is a problem - well insurance companies already do it. The only podiatrist in Apple Valley bent us over a barrel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:It's very easy to start a medical business under single payer, because the government says "here's what we pay for these procedures, and here's the areas we subsidize." Look at those numbers, can you make a profit? No? Then don't do it. ... Starting a medical business as a provider in Canada honestly seems amazing relative to the US. All the negotiations between insurers and providers are just miserable from my limited experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 20:44
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Health care is already highly regulated in this country though. I don’t see that as a major blocker. We already got people accustomed to Obamacare and multi payer is easily implemented within that framework with a few tweaks. That was kind of the point of Obamacare. If we put into place a plan that was "Medicare for everyone: you never pay anything ever except for a 5% tax increase for all Americans" it would become equally enshrined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:Multi payer also keeps everyone’s healthcare from being hosed with during a Republican Congress. If the feds pay for everyone’s healthcare good luck getting coverage for, say, gender reassignment. Whereas if states still have some kind of role at least non lovely states can make sure their local insurance organizations cover that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
cheese posted:If we put into place a plan that was "Medicare for everyone: you never pay anything ever except for a 5% tax increase for all Americans" it would become equally enshrined. Nothing should ever be paid for with a flat tax, hope that helps
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
But how can we make sure black people aren’t being served at my hospital if we have single payer? I don’t want my wife in a hospital bed that a negro just slept in! Goodness gracious!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
Since we've heard from Craptacular about his mom with cancer (thank you for sharing) here's the personal experience of a British person with the NHS and her mum, who also has cancer. https://splinternews.com/government-healthcare-is-saving-my-mums-life-1827634101
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Nothing should ever be paid for with a flat tax, hope that helps
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
How about start by proposing that it be paid for progressively and then cede ground only if it's absolutely necessary?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
For some reason this thread depicted me as an enemy of all single payer healthcare ideas, even though I’ve repeated wordy versions of “Canada not UK” over and over. And didn’t deny that the UK version works for them, but their politics aren’t so destructive. I unabashedly support a mandatory national health plan, I just don’t want governments buying/seizing hospital administration. Which I know is unlikely to happen, but somebody voiced support for it. And so I said “mm, no, wouldn’t want that so long as Republicans are controlling the Executive Branch sometimes, because then they’d be appointing administrators who would do terrible things.” And then all this happened, and now here we are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:And didn’t deny that the UK version works for them, but their politics aren’t so destructive. Yes, Brexit and Jeremy's Hunt work at destroying the NHS certainly aren't destructive. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
We've explained to you time and time again why that reasoning is dumb and wrong, but here you are still repeating it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Nothing should ever be paid for with a flat tax, hope that helps
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
cheese posted:An actual flat tax without deductions and other bullshit would be a massive tax hike on the wealthy And yet they would still be better off than a poor person who gets jacked up another 5%. For example, if you have Warren Buffet and Homeless Bob, who make $1 billion and $10,000 respectively, Buffet can eat the $50,000,000 surtax without feeling anything whereas Homeless Bob is going to feel that $500 surtax. Ability-to-pay is a big factor involved, since a guy making bupkus will feel every dollar taxed more than someone making hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of dollars. Hell, that's the point of the lesson of the widow's mite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
A "just pay X% of income" tax system could maybe work if X progressively increased alongside personal income, but that's not really a flat tax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Let’s just go with a maximum wage and like a 99% estate tax.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:11
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Let’s just go with a maximum wage and like a 99% estate tax. 100% estate tax and everyone gets a publicly supported death benefit to handle funeral costs and generational transfer of wealth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:19
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:100% estate tax and everyone gets a publicly supported death benefit to handle funeral costs and generational transfer of wealth. 100% estate tax and everyone get a publicly funded execution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Let's just kill everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:40
|
|
|
Return the earth to nature, destroy all humans
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:42
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Let's just kill everyone. That's the Republican platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Return the earth to nature, destroy all humans We're working on it
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
I like that completely abandoned is the notion of ever getting the wealthy to pay their fair share, that's ridiculous, let's just institute a completely biased flat tax and socialize the taxes of the rich upon everyone else even further. Also keep all the loopholes so the rich effectively are paid by everyone poorers taxes. It's rigged, we all admit it now. Let's get this class war rolling already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Gail Wynand posted:I don’t understand the hard on for single payer, multi payer systems like they have in most of the non English speaking developed world cost less than single payer and deliver better outcomes. Oy, this tired trope again. Get back to us when one of those other not-single-payer countries allows balance billing for "out-of-network" providers; restricts you to a handful of "in network" doctors and facilities or allows you to be billed in full; demands that you pay one-third to one-half of your net income in annual out-of-pocket costs; and lets providers, insurers and pharma set sky's-the-limit pricing. Can you name one of your vaunted alterna-systems that includes even one of these clusterfucks, let alone all of them as is currently the case in the U.S.?
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Can you name one of your vaunted alterna-systems that includes even one of these clusterfucks, let alone all of them as is currently the case in the U.S.? No, the US system is uniquely horrible and I think pretty much everyone accepts that. But it's also not the case the universal healthcare can only be provided under a single-payer system, and additionally it's not the case that single-payer systems must involve only government-run hospitals and healthcare facilities. The US could fashion a workable system based on lots of different and already-proven models, and pretty much all of them would be better than what y'all have right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
PT6A posted:No, the US system is uniquely horrible and I think pretty much everyone accepts that. But it's also not the case the universal healthcare can only be provided under a single-payer system, and additionally it's not the case that single-payer systems must involve only government-run hospitals and healthcare facilities. Well, yeah; sure... if the ACA had included cost controls on providers, insurers, and prescription drugs; if it had outlawed balance billing; if it had not made it nearly financially impossible to get insurance coverage outside of one's county lines; and if it had not imposed draconian out-of-pocket costs, then it'd be pretty wonderful (and likely not eroded as the piece-o'-crap ACA has been). But why not demand single-payer and settle for strict regulations within our "uniquely American" system? Why not point out that those not-single-payer systems are regulated to the extent that our Medicare system is? Why argue for creating something-like-other-countries-but-don't-call-it-single-payer when Medicare for All is a simple, popular statement that resonates with most Americans?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 02:56
|
|