|
OP did you know stalin did nothing wrong
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
the United States is the richest nation in the history of the world ever and all the socialized programs work better with more participants so really that whole argument is a giant crock of poo poo which is extra funny esp considering it was the USA that pushed for all those socialized systems in Europe post-WW2 in the first place. Good enough for them but not good enough for us I guess (it was bc they wanted to make capitalism appealing to the Eastern bloc countries). this new age american exceptionalism of "we can't do it for some reason bc we're us even though everyone else is already doing it" is such loving bullshit
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Counterpoint to that though: almost all of that is caused by obstructionist retard free marketers like this one who intentionally make government agencies work like poo poo so they can later make the same argument you are making and advocate for privatization:Grover Fuckboy Norquist posted:I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub. The government isn't inherently incapable of doing something well and there are a lot of things it does do well and there's no reason to just give up because the current situation is hosed up. quote:The nation's largest wind power project has taken over a decade just to get approval to begin construction because of how long environmental impact analysis takes and how many different agencies have to approve on any single project. Wind power, one of the vanguards of renewable energy and something the previous Presidential administration wanted to prioritize, is being crippled by the very same entity that encouraged its growth. Like, do you really think this is because "goverment" or is it more likely because the POTUS isn't the king and there are all kinds of people (such as oil lobbyists) throwing wrenches into every single environmental related thing they can resulting in an EPA that is a piece of poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
You need federal subsidies at the least though because otherwise like CA and NY will be fine and everyone else will be hosed still.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
tbh we need to drag those Southern red states kicking and screaming into the future because they are poo poo and continue to be poo poo and elect poo poo politicians that turn it into even more poo poo Brownbackistan lmao
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:First of all, Kansas is not the South, and second of all, terrible governance is just one of a shitload of problems Kansas faces, none of which are being adequately addressed on either the federal or state level. But poo poo trickles downhill at that. Kansas is not the South but it is pretty representative of what is happening there in general https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-23/inside-alabama-s-auto-jobs-boom-cheap-wages-little-training-crushed-limbs and trickle downhill? PLEASE lol the reason it is called BROWNBACKistan is because the state legislature and the governor together have turned it into a poo poo land not because Obama or the federal gov't did anything to them quote:I think the U.S.'s needs are too varied and too broad in scope to be benefit by single system to address that. wrt to healthcare specifically, not really. people are people and some are poor and some are rich and some need more care and some don't but this doesn't change the fact that 1 big risk pool is the most efficient way to operate an insurance scheme. quote:I'd be all for maintaining our current way of doing things, but it doesn't seem to be working, and we've had decades now to either work out the problems or reform the systems in place and after all that time, what's the return on investment? Neither Democratic nor Republican leaders have manage to address any of the holistic problems facing our nation. Something needs to give, and I think the most logical solution is to empower the states and local communities to create their own plans of action. I see what you are saying here but imo the state and local poo poo is all D or R as well and honestly both those parties threw Americans that aren't the top 10% overboard years ago and gently caress them both we just need new leadership that actually gives a gently caress about something other than managing the affairs of the bourgie class whether that starts with local elections or not idk. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I agree we need affordable healthcare, but is a single payer system going to provide that? Will it provide it without the pretty serious problems that impact other systems? What if the system works well in some states and not others? Yeah but again it would have been fine if the GOP didn't obstruct single payer and have it removed. 8-Bit Scholar posted:I agree we need affordable healthcare, but is a single payer system going to provide that? Will it provide it without the pretty serious problems that impact other systems? What if the system works well in some states and not others? yes to the first two by virtue of the single big risk pool how would it work well in state A but not state B?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
I mean dude it's just medicare. We've had medicare for decades and it has operated just fine (except for when congress "borrows" money from the fund and then doesn't pay it back like they do with SS lol) just expand medicare to everyone and instead of premiums we pay taxes which into the single big risk pool (which results in more money in your pocket at the end of the day) quote:In the United States, Medicare is a single-payer, national social insurance program administered by the US federal government since 1966
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Those all require different resources with different costs: medicine and surgery for the South, clean water access for the arid desert, and gas for the transportation of patients in the larger, less populated states. Obtaining these resources reliably and at a responsible level of cost is a major challenge, and one I think that local governments could address easier, since they could attempt to stimulate their own economies by obtaining as much of these resources from agencies close at hand. Why would a healthcare system need to worry about water access or gas? That's something totally separate isn't it? Just pay for ambulances surely that's not some onerous burden. You might have a point wrt to socialized programs in general but with regard to socialized medicine nah man it's really not all that complex. Some areas need more, some areas need less. The point remains that with one single big giant risk pool the areas and people that need more can be more easily taken care of and no one gets left out in the cold. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
And from a brutally heartless "I don't care about other people" economic point of view: our healthcare system is extremely detrimental to our economy and competitive edge versus other modern countries and their workforces simply because the amount of preventable injury/disease/etc that exists here is a huge drag on worker productivity. Which also then negatively affects aggregate demand which is bad as well. It's bad for jobs and bad for economic growth on top of the fact that we have millions of people who need help and aren't getting it. The little cherry on top is that it continues to make us look like a laughingstock to the rest of the modern world which figured this poo poo out ages ago. e: wait this is the NK thread lol what Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:you better have a lot of tankie tweets saved up to post itt after this derail my good man don't worry i got u 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:You really underestimate how much transportation costs in general contribute to just about any department that would utilize them. The state of Wyoming pays around $300 million in transportation costs alone for schools, a fifth of its entire education budget. Only relatively recently has it been cost efficient for more than one hospital to get an air ambulance or helicopter to help deal with the hundreds of miles of distance. In places like Massachusetts or New York, which are small, transportation and gas costs wouldn't be major factors, but larger states, especially rural states, absolutely would. We're talking about healthcare specifically, what does water access have to do with it? If the local people need better water for the hospital then the hospital can get better water and the bill goes up the chain and it is handled. Similarly when the transport costs are more in rural areas, well that's okay because the denser urban areas subsidize the costs via the single big risk pool everyone pays into. Which is way better than now where if you are in a rural area and call 9-1-1 welp here's a $2000 ambulance bill have fun. There's no reason it can't be a federal program that addresses local concerns brought up by locals. There doesn't need to be a top down committee deciding for literally every hospital their needs and allocations. It would work just like medicare works dude. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Bulgogi Hoagie posted:Kim J is real, and strong and he's my friend 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I mean, you're talking about these things like hospital overhead is not a big part of healthcare costs, because it absolutely is. It's not the biggest, there's a lot of things that dip into every dollar spent in a hospital, but transportation gets really expensive when you're fueling helicopters and flying out hundreds of miles to transport a patient. Healthcare costs aren't just limited to purchasing scalpels and medicines or paying doctor salaries or doctor lawyers. I'm not saying hospital overhead isn't expensive. I'm saying, what is your point? The entire point of the one big risk pool is to subsidize the costs of these things. Call a rural ambulance right now: bill for thousands of dollars bc you're in a very low populated state with no real healthcare program beyond what private insurers will offer you and hey they've gotta turn a profit too Call a rural ambulance with universal healthcare: pay $5 because the rest of the actual cost of the ambulance is subsidized The risk pool is the entire point behind why insurance even functions in the first place. The argument of "well some need more and some need less therefore they can't mesh" (which is what Paul Ryan said a few days ago iirc) is completely missing the point. The costs for those that need more are subsidized by the people that need less. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Yyyess, but this isn't as easy a solution as you put it out to be. Some folks may object to being subsidized, some may not be able to afford it on top of other costs, or the subsidies may hit one state harder than others due to all sorts of possibilities, tax codes or poo poo like that. I mean dude here it's v simple really. At the moment we have tons of various risk pools (by virtue of the fact that there are numerous competing insurance companies). At the moment, people with health coverage pay expensive premiums and those who cannot afford them do not get coverage. Under a single payer system, instead of premiums people just have a much smaller payment (such as your medicare payroll tax) to make via taxes. Since all this money goes to one central fund (like medicare) you get one risk pool. Which mathematically is more efficient than all the numerous risk pools we have now, even if we ignore the bit about how insurance companies need to make a profit on top of that and a single payer system doesn't. There is no federal committee deciding which state gets what. There is no state forced to make payments from its state budget. Hospitals are still run locally. Doctors still get to diagnose and prescribe treatment freely. If you don't make enough money to be able to afford the payroll tax, it doesn't get withheld. It's just a central fund all our tax payments earmarked for medical care go into which then pays for the medical costs of our citizens across the board regardless of whether you're 60 in rural Alabama in need of extra care or a 20 year old in CA not worried about healthcare at all. Like... again dude we already do this it is called medicare except we only give it to old or disabled people and the GOP wants to gut that as well because "socialism" (they really just want a larger market for the private insurance companies) instead of expanding it. Just imagine one big giant insurance company if you like, except it is a non-profit and the shareholders are all the citizens. Somehow companies like Aetna manage to have millions of customers across all kinds of different social stratas and still turn a profit on top of that. Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Again, I don't think it's prudent to entrust that single risk pool to safeguard everyone's medical care. It sounds like putting all of your eggs in one basket. If anything, that sort of fund would be better used to serve as a safety net in case any of the state-run plans fucks up super bad and needs emergency money, which would also help serve as a means of providing emergency reform to a poorly designed system. I especially do not have enough faith in the federal government as it is run now, by whom it is run now, to safeguard these monies responsibly. Until such a time as the power structure of the Washington elite has shifted, I'm not particularly willing to trust their intentions. My local legislators are much more accessible; I can call up my local senator and talk to him directly. What happens to his community affects him far more directly than it does his federal counterpart. We already do what you're talking about and the result is rich states like CA and NYC have state level programs that ensure the people in them aren't dying and sick just bc they are poor and the numerous other states that can't afford it or are led by assholes are hosed and are dragging the nation down economically. We already do what you're suggesting would be a disaster, it's called Medicare.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
what if north korea is best korea?
Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 04:08 |
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 06:33
|
|