The Reality of Socialized Medicine

[jomar]

Ah. I'm so used to being called a Russian bot around here I just assumed you meant me. At least that creep that kept calling everybody a racist hasn't been around much lately.

I see, no, DoN...that entity is all about the propaganda.

...

Republicans hate government, and their whole approach to drumming up support for that point of view is to "starve the beast" so it CAN'T function well, and then say, "See, government can't do anything right". No one can do a very good job if you make a point of depriving them of the resources needed to do it. Bottom line, there is no reason to think single payer couldn't work, provided we fund it appropriately.

...

You mean like when Republicans stripped a shit-ton of promised money from ACA as it was going out the door to hobble it?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Sorry but I call BS on that. Find me one example online...

Just ask Venezuela!!! They make the claim all the time.

Oh and this started when he was 75, so you would be good then too, cause Medicare would cover your costs, so someone else is paying anyhow for you at that age, right?

Medicare is nonfunctioning trash that cost way more than it should....it's a failure that needs to be taken out back and shot.

So you don't think there are problems?

Oh I do, but I think they are functional/cost problems. Almost entirely stemming from government involvement.

NOT a lack of equity which is the primary complaint from the left that makes US healthcare "bad" and soooooo horrible it ranks way down at 19 out of 195.

Then why the hell are you on the board complaining??? chuckles

Because I like to argue a liberal, US perspective when foreign leftist try to argue freedom is wrong and state oppression is a superior way of doing things.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Because I like to argue a liberal, US perspective when foreign leftist try to argue freedom is wrong and state oppression is a superior way of doing things.

The health care systems of many countries that provide a universal system were established by a choice of the electorate in each country. The US electorate does not want to, or is persuaded that such a decision would be wrong, expensive, anti-American or anti-freedom.

What works elsewhere, in a variety of differing ways, is impossible in the US's current political system.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Just ask Venezuela!!! They make the claim all the time.

Now that is one of the best jokes of late!! 5

Because I like to argue a liberal, US perspective when foreign leftist try to argue freedom is wrong and state oppression is a superior way of doing things.

I mentioned this to another person, "Don't put fucking words into my mouth!!!"

You have no idea of my political stripes, I could be conservative, socialist, communist,liberal,fascist or sociopath....yet never have I said any of the above!!!

I may disagree with your meaning of freedom, and I have no fucking use for government interference in my life. However I also understand the social contract of my country, and I respect the rights of it's citizens through the electoral process to elect governments to power who may not share my same beliefs. I must as a citizen abide by this process, knowing that at the next election I will get my say again.

As well I do however enjoy debate, and political commentary.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Oh I do, but I think they are functional/cost problems. Almost entirely stemming from government involvement.

NOT a lack of equity which is the primary complaint from the left that makes US healthcare "bad" and soooooo horrible it ranks way down at 19 out of 195

It is the World Health Organization that ranks the health care 19th around the world, definitely not the Democrats.

Glad to see you admit there is room for improvement.

 

[gunthernehmen]

I could be conservative, socialist, communist,liberal,fascist or sociopath

You said sociopath twice

 

[BotanyBoy]

You have no idea of my political stripes, I could be conservative, socialist, communist,liberal,fascist or sociopath....yet never have I said any of the above!!!

No you haven't, but you've argued everything from from the perspective of a lefty in favor of collectivism and equity.

That gives me insight to your views, and they seem to lean left.

It is the World Health Organization that ranks the health care 19th around the world, definitely not the Democrats.

Glad to see you admit there is room for improvement.

Didn't say it was the democrats.

Glad to see you admit there are things other than socializing the HC system that can be considered an improvement.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The health care systems of many countries that provide a universal system were established by a choice of the electorate in each country. The US electorate does not want to, or is persuaded that such a decision would be wrong, expensive, anti-American or anti-freedom.

What works elsewhere, in a variety of differing ways, is impossible in the US's current political system.

Indeed.

That doesn't stop the haterz though.

If the (D)'s really wanted what they say they want they would do it in their states.

Everyone wins!!

But they won't....and we all know why.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No you haven't, but you've argued everything from from the perspective of a lefty in favor of collectivism and equity.

That gives me insight to your views, and they seem to lean left.

Ever hear the term Devils advocate?

Though from a Canadian perspective all of us will be left, with the exception of a few from Alberta.

Didn't say it was the democrats.

Glad to see you admit there are things other than socializing the HC system that can be considered an improvement.

Ok I did not think so, but sometimes meanings get mixed up.

 

[YDB95]

The observant reader will have noticed that I said several states have tried and failed nhs programs. And then tried to explain part of why they failed using an example.

The observant reader knows the only "example" you used involved fixing potholes in the street. That has nothing to do with any state-run health care programs, unless you're arguing "They can't do A right, which means they must not be able to do B right either, even though the two have nothing in common." Which is rather poor logic if you ask me.

And it's also important to remember that some Republican governors have deliberately sabotaged their states' health-care programmes because they don't want them to work. THAT is the elephant in the living room here: right-wingers oppose national health care not because they're afraid it won't work, but because they're afraid it WILL work, and will soon become politically unassailable like Social Security and Medicare have. (Remember, right-wingers made the exact same dire predictions about both of those, with Ronald Reagan even predicting the demise of democracy if Medicare were enacted.)

 

[BotanyBoy]

Ever hear the term Devils advocate?

Though from a Canadian perspective all of us will be left, with the exception of a few from Alberta.

Maybe, unlikely though.

Most Canadians consider me radically right wing.

Support for things like free speech including offensive speech and voluntary (not forced) exchange of goods and services almost always freaks them out.

If not either of those the idea of an individual right to self defense gets the ad hominem flowing.

THAT is the elephant in the living room here: right-wingers oppose national health care not because they're afraid it won't work, but because they're afraid it WILL work,

They aren't afraid it will work either.

They don't care if it "works" great.....it's against their (supposed and conveniently flexible) economically liberal principals.

They don't think it's right to take private property/labor from one person and give it to another...unless it's something they agree with like ag subsidies.

Obviously some people are more ideologically principled and others more partisan.

 

[YDB95]

Maybe, unlikely though.



They don't think it's right to take private property/labor from one person and give it to another...

Neither do I, but I don't believe taxation falls under that definition. Especially not when it provides for something universally positive such as better health care for everyone.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Neither do I, but I don't believe taxation falls under that definition.

Not always...depends on what kind of taxation and for what purpose.

You have openly advocated for progressive taxation for the sake of equity....more equal outcomes for all.

That's forcibly taking time/labor from the "rich" and giving to the poor.

Especially not when it provides for something universally positive such as better health care for everyone.

And there is the lie, it's not universally positive.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The observant reader knows the only "example" you used involved fixing potholes in the street. That has nothing to do with any state-run health care programs, unless you're arguing "They can't do A right, which means they must not be able to do B right either, even though the two have nothing in common." Which is rather poor logic if you ask me.

And it's also important to remember that some Republican governors have deliberately sabotaged their states' health-care programmes because they don't want them to work. THAT is the elephant in the living room here: right-wingers oppose national health care not because they're afraid it won't work, but because they're afraid it WILL work, and will soon become politically unassailable like Social Security and Medicare have. (Remember, right-wingers made the exact same dire predictions about both of those, with Ronald Reagan even predicting the demise of democracy if Medicare were enacted.)

The state with which I'm most familiar has a democratic governor in ALL but name. The system failed on it's own merits.

 

[YDB95]

You have openly advocated for progressive taxation for the sake of equity....more equal outcomes for all.

That's forcibly taking time/labor from the "rich" and giving to the poor.

Nice touch with putting "rich" in quotation marks there. I suppose you're going to argue that people who would be liable for Warren's wealth tax aren't really rich? That is certainly...an interesting perspective.

But even if I agreed with what you are probably getting at there, it's extremely unlikely that ANY wealth that would be taxed under her plan would be the direct result of "time/labor". Hardly anyone earns that much money yearly via their salary. It's almost always the result of accumulated wealth (often from previous generations, as is the case with Trump). Anyone who seriously believes a wealth tax would disincentivize working to amass a fortune has never even really tried to actually do that.

And there is the lie, it's not universally positive.

How do you figure a healthier populace, and removing the fear of one illness throwing your family into bankruptcy, is not universally positive? Because the insurance companies might not make money hand over fist with flagrant disregard for people's health anymore? I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

The state with which I'm most familiar has a democratic governor in ALL but name. The system failed on it's own merits.

As an educated guess based on your location, I'm guessing you mean either Massachusetts or Vermont. Care to confirm, and to elaborate on the problem?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Maybe, unlikely though.

Most Canadians consider me radically right wing.

Support for things like free speech including offensive speech and voluntary (not forced) exchange of goods and services almost always freaks them out.

If not either of those the idea of an individual right to self defense gets the ad hominem flowing.

None of the above is an issue with me, or most Canadians I know, but then again I am pretty remote, so you need a certain self reliance.

However when it comes to "freedom" of speech, I suspect I have a bit more "limits" on what free speech is, compared to you... chuckles.

 

[gunthernehmen]

As an educated guess based on your location, I'm guessing you mean either Massachusetts or Vermont. Care to confirm, and to elaborate on the problem?

Mass. It's a chronically corrupt place. Sort of a caricature of government inefficiency and waste.

Anyone without means or access to private healthcare insurance can get Mass Health. Because of the pesky thing called the Constitution, any NHS attempt here will be on a state by state basis, so this is a pretty good view to how it would work nationally. Poorly, to be exact.

Not all doctors accept Mass Health (in part) because it's a royal pain for them to deal with. If you DO find a doctor you like that accepts it, they are very restricted in tests, procedures or meds that are permitted.

What it does do astoundingly well is encourage the people to use the ER for frivolous needs that should be dealt with at home, the next day at their dr's office or if it can't wait, at an urgent care clinic.

So costs skyrocket and patient outcomes drop.

Obviously a big oversimplification, but the bottom line is the version of nhs that we would look "forward" to will be (already is) a dismal failure.

 

[YDB95]

Mass. It's a chronically corrupt place. Sort of a caricature of government inefficiency and waste.

Anyone without means or access to private healthcare insurance can get Mass Health. Because of the pesky thing called the Constitution, any NHS attempt here will be on a state by state basis, so this is a pretty good view to how it would work nationally. Poorly, to be exact.

Not all doctors accept Mass Health (in part) because it's a royal pain for them to deal with. If you DO find a doctor you like that accepts it, they are very restricted in tests, procedures or meds that are permitted.

What it does do astoundingly well is encourage the people to use the ER for frivolous needs that should be dealt with at home, the next day at their dr's office or if it can't wait, at an urgent care clinic.

So costs skyrocket and patient outcomes drop.

Obviously a big oversimplification, but the bottom line is the version of nhs that we would look "forward" to will be (already is) a dismal failure.

Of course, the Mass health care system - instituted by self-proclaimed "severely conservative" Mitt Romney - is based on a plan drawn up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer. So its shortcomings only go to show single-payer is a better option.

 

[magicalmoments]

#240 above

What is: "voluntary (not forced) exchange of goods and services"? Can I have an example of both please, or a reference to a site that contrasts the two.

I did do a quick google but it didn't come up with anything sensible.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Of course, the Mass health care system - instituted by self-proclaimed "severely conservative" Mitt Romney - is based on a plan drawn up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation as an alternative to single-payer. So its shortcomings only go to show single-payer is a better option.

There you go again. Two statements and you draw the opposite conclusion that is reasonable from the statements.

BTW, you've inadvertantly proven the point that a nhs/single payer system will never work here in the US, even if it WERE possible without a constitutional amendment.

 

[DawnONight]

Austria, Australia Belarus, Canada Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom New Zealand . Off the top of my head, few more than one, and most of which are not bankrupt ( Russia maybe, but who would know??)....

I don't have time this morning to research the situation in every country in your off-the-top-of-your-head list, but I can address several off the top of mine.

United Kingdom: I have chronicled in this thread all the current breakdowns in the UK's NHS. People are dying on ever-growing waiting lists.

Canada: Canadians with urgent health needs regularly cross the border to avoid waiting for inferior treatment up there.

Portugal, Italy, Greece, & Spain: There is a reason they are generally listed together in that order, and it has to do with their general socialist economies, not their rural ones.

Scandinavia: I've read of death panels, like they've started to develop in the UK, too.

Germany: There's a Nazi joke in this somewhere, but I''ll resist the urge to find it.​

As for the rest (even Germany), it's just a matter of time and basic economics. If you make something "free," you end up outstripping supply. At some point, that comes back to bite you, as is happening now in the UK.

I'll find the time to read what you recommend, and comment when I have done. I do respect and enjoy debating with you. You're one of the few opponents I have here who actually reasons and debates, rather than just blubbers.

 

[icanhelp1]

There you go again. Two statements and you draw the opposite conclusion that is reasonable from the statements.

BTW, you've inadvertantly proven the point that a nhs/single payer system will never work here in the US, even if it WERE possible without a constitutional amendment.

Knowing what we know about government mismanagement ( tax and spend ) why would anyone want to trust the government to dismantle a large portion of our economy and turn it over to government managers for a larger version of the VA.

We have politicians that want to give free HC to illegal migrants that don't belong here. Why is that important? Because we are 22 trillion in debt and providing care to illegal migrants is spending our money for reasons that it's not intended for or in the best interest of its taxpayers. Who do they think they are? When NYC allocates taxpayer money for educating illegals over veterans, thats fucked up!!! Politicians truly believe our money is theirs and throw it around like there's plenty more where that came from. Our politicians don't have the best interest of americans at heart. It's all about a power grab.

Customer service is not a strong point in any of our government agencies, just try dealing with SS, DMV in any state or the IRS. For Veterans needing care from the V.A. some vets have to travel hundreds of miles for care, this isn't a new issue, its been going on for over half a century or more. Why does that matter, because the government, when locked into an ARCHAIC sop our government is too partisan, too divided to make decisions on things that require change. Bigger is not better.

Millions of people are happy with the way things are, happy with the health care provided by their employer. We bitch about companies getting rich, wealth inequality and yet we want to let big business off the hook by taking HC cost out of their hands!?

Why should we grant the government the authority to take away the HC we like to convert to something we don't believe in or are not convinced it would work efficiently or be effective. We could fix what we have, provide safety nets for the less fortunate and create a high risk pool for pre existing conditions. If government can't handle that then they certainly can't handle a program that's exponentially larger.

Many countries have a NHC system that works for them and their citizens are for the most part satisfied but those countries are much smaller population wise and I don't believe proportionality would work in our case. As it stands now there is a real problem with defrauding Medicare to the tune of billions. The bigger the bureaucracy the more the waste, fraud and abuse problem grows.

We have a bill on the table ( USMCA ) which would benefit millions but because of partisan politics it sitting there collecting dust.

I do see a lot of synergies that exist in a NHC system and I believe it works in other countries but until congress finds the intestinal fortitude to eliminate or at least consolidate redundant programs, shut down the ones that are outdated, do something about border security and reforming immigration policy, balance a fucking budget, maybe term limits, I wouldn't trust the government to work for the betterment of its people. When the American people come in second to illegals. well don't touch my healthcare. Our politics has gone off the rails, It's like trusting an alcoholic alone in a package store.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Nice touch with putting "rich" in quotation marks there. I suppose you're going to argue that people who would be liable for Warren's wealth tax aren't really rich? That is certainly...an interesting perspective.

No I'm saying rich is a relative term for anyone who has more than "you".

Also they don't even have close to enough and when it quickly runs out you will have to come for the upper middle class (me) and then the middle class, and then everyone who has anything.

But even if I agreed with what you are probably getting at there, it's extremely unlikely that ANY wealth that would be taxed under her plan would be the direct result of "time/labor".

All wealth/money/material goods and skilled services are a result of time and labor.....stealing it by force is bad, this is why fascism and socialism which are both almost entirely dependent on the state enslaving the people are considered so disgusting and anti-American.

Hardly anyone earns that much money yearly via their salary.

Exactly....there isn't enough there, so people like Warren come up with a "wealth tax" to tax people annually on shit they already paid taxes on with money they paid tax on. Slowly but surely eating away at everything anyone has beyond some arbitrary (and thus movable) wealth marker.

So after you clean out those in the top 10% and you're still some 40-60 Trillion dollars short guess who they are coming for next??

If you want to find out, check the tax rates on some of your beloved wealth redistribution happy democracies like Sweden.....their poor people pay more taxes than our rich percentage wise. And they still don't have enough.

It's almost always the result of accumulated wealth (often from previous generations, as is the case with Trump).

So? That doesn't make taking their shit and giving it to others right.

Especially after they already paid taxes on the material goods/services as well as the money they exchanged for it.

If I leave money/property I've already paid taxes on it's mine, that means I can give it to whoever I want, the state has no right to it.

It's called the concept of private property, you clearly don't believe in such things, but most Americans do.

How do you figure a healthier populace, and removing the fear of one illness throwing your family into bankruptcy, is not universally positive?

Because you had to fuck the top 40% out of everything they have to get it.

You're going to have to take their individual pursuit of happiness away and replace it with the and replace it with the anti-American collective pursuit of equity to have it.

Because the insurance companies might not make money hand over fist with flagrant disregard for people's health anymore?

Part of it, that's a few more million folks you're fucking our of their pursuit of happiness.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

I know you wont, I noticed you're fine with stealing from the rich and giving to the poor some time ago


Question: Why are you so against equal and honest taxation to provide public services? Why the strong desire for wealth redistribution and elimination of private property?

 

[BotanyBoy]

#240 above

What is: "voluntary (not forced) exchange of goods and services"? Can I have an example of both please, or a reference to a site that contrasts the two.

I did do a quick google but it didn't come up with anything sensible.

Any exchange of goods and or services that is voluntary. It's a pretty simple concept.

Examples......

I recently paid an electrician to come put a 30A 4 wire 220 circuit in my garage for an agreed upon exchange medium....700 US dollars. That included a new breaker, wire, conduit, outlet and about 4 hours of time from 2 guys to come an make it happen.

It was a voluntary exchange between me and the electrician.

His apprentice/helper was being paid X/hr....a free and voluntary exchange of his time/labor with the electrician. Sharp kid, if he sticks with it he'll be making fuck loads of money one day selling his skills to broke ass college grads.

 

[DawnONight]

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Most Americans—73.5 percent—would be financially worse off under “Medicare for All,” a government-run universal health care system.
2. All workers would pay a 21.2 percent payroll tax in addition to current taxes, in order to fund the massive increase in spending under a government-run system.
3. Under Medicare for All, households with employer-sponsored health coverage would have an average of $10,554 less in disposable income each year.

E. Haislmaier & J. Hall, How “Medicare for All” Harms Working Americans, Heritage Foundation (Nov. 19, 2019).

Meanwhile:

J. Schmitz, I Left England Because of Socialized Medicine. My Life Depended on It., Daily Signal (Nov. 21, 2019).