Gouging during a disaster is a common criticism of anti-regulation attitudes. Water is in short supply, so you charge 2,000 dollars a bottle. I think that's something we can all agree is unethical.
But what about the person struck with terminal cancer. As much a disaster as a water shortage, yet they get bled for all their worth. Is this any more ethical then gouging the person dying of thirst after a storm? What's the difference?
The cancer victim isn't exactly in a position to haggle. Oh, sure, they can shop around before a disaster, but almost everybody gets bled out in the end... They're a business, and if you're a captive consumer with a limited budget and an insurance cap, that's not your problem, is it?
Isn't that the health care industry in a nutshell?
I guess you can look at it from those views. I am not saying you are wrong, itís just one way to look at it.
I honestly wants for everyone to get help. But thatís only if we lived in a perfect world, and Mankind arenít ruled by greed. But at the same time, the world is a dog eat world dog, the fittest survives and the weak suffers.
The UK and Canadian models are definitely superior to the US one. I don't see why, as a developed people, we can't provide healthcare as a right whilst also having private healthcare for those who can or want to pay. Same as schooling, etc. It's just better for society overall, as far as I can tell.
The smarter part of the discussion isn't if we should do it , it's how we do it. That is something if done well and communicated clearly would be a huge win for the US. Unfortunately politics tends to cloud the issue and create sides where no one really wins.
Oh for sure it'd be difficult, the current system is incredibly well-established by now in the US Ė but economically, it must be possible. I admit, I don't know a great deal about Obamacare, but it'd have to be implemented much better than that. It'd be interesting to see if someone like Bernie could implement something effective in the future.
Also, I just realised that my initial post makes me seem like I'm from the US (I'm actually from the UK), so sorry about that, bad wording on my part.
According to someone who works in the drug industry, Obamacare wouldn't have done much for core problems like, say, a hospital overpaying for anti-venom by 3000%, then moving the zero over so a patient needs to mortgage their home to afford it. Meanwhile, you can buy the same stuff for 100 dollars in Mexico.
It's worth noting when discussing Obamacare that the original idea was to implement a public option into the system, thereby allowing basically anyone to buy into medicare if they so wished. They were, I believe, one vote short on this, so they had to scrap that part of it.
I'm not sure that's the answer, if private healthcare were to be outlawed then it would improve universal healthcare IMO as rich or poor you'll be treated largely the same, The impetus would be on everyone to opt in to this as your money wont save you.
__________________ Then lets head down into that cellar and carve ourselves a witch
I agree with this idea. Many people would call it un-American (a term I ****ing loathe, because it assumes the status quo is the best way), but most are getting milked by private insurance companies and would go bankrupt after severe medical problems, while the wealthy are largely unaffected by the costs. It's stupid not to support such a system, but [something-something freedom] and [something-something socialism], I guess.
Whilst that could be true, I disagree as a baseline with limiting the market when it comes to healthcare; I think it'd actually stifle it and not allow it to develop as quickly as it could, technologically (among other things). Also, I doubt the current system could turn into your proposed system without decades of reformation first.
Whilst I draw the line at private police forces and prisons, having a private side to healthcare seems fair to me.
Not really. I mean yeah the British did technically impose a lot of taxes on us, but they knew weren't exactly wealthy so the Tea Tax was the only one they insisted that we pay. And honestly... they deserved to milk quite a bit of money from us. The whole reason they started with the severe taxes is because America disobey British orders and attacked France which also forced the British to go to war with them. That's also why they started restricting our access to guns. When you get right down to it, our founding fathers were pretty much assholes...
From what I've heard, even the lack of representation wasn't totally Britain's fault. Ben Franklin was in communication with Britain and wasn't telling them about how pissed people were over here. He pretty much always acted like things were hunky dorey right up until the Boston Tea Party.
At least that's what I heard from a guy on Cracked.com. It's very possible that using pushing a skewed perspective of the whole thing.
Of course didn't get much out of it. The taxes weren't levied as a cost for services that were currently being rendered, the taxes were restitution for pulling Britain into a costly war with France. They expected us to pay them back some of what they'd already spent, we'd already received the services we were paying for during the war. It's similar to the difference between mowing the lawn in order to get one's allowance and mowing the lawn to work off the cost of you breaking the TV.
Last edited by darthgoober on Aug 21st, 2018 at 06:45 PM
It is also worth noting that Sanders only cites Friedman's analysis on his website. Despite, most academics disapproving of it and the lack of peer review. Why is the Friedman report inaccurate?
1. Friedman assumes that that states will continue to pay for Medicare and CHIP after the elimination of those programs.
2. He severely exaggerates savings from Single Payer.
3. Inaccurately assesses additional associated with the removal of cost-sharing.
4. Provider savings are unrealistic.
More on this topic here: http://prospect.org/article/why-san...s-campaign-says
Due to these facts, we can dismiss Friedman's two-page invoice and focus on the other numbers cited. What is the cause of the discrepancy between Thorpe(off-hand analysis) and the Urban Institute(peer-reviewed published report)? Look at pg.11&12 of the Institute's study for more information: https://www.urban.org/research/publ...iew/full_report
For the reasons discussed there, I will rely on the Urban Institute as my primary source, when comparing costs. I also want to address one more detail, before continuing. Bernie Sanders' smug video. The Washington Post, of all people, fact-checked this claim. I will briefly report their findings. Sanders manipulates the principle of charity when thanking the Koch brothers. To quote the Post,
Blahous even notes this in the study, but Sanders ignores that fact. The post concludes,
So, in reality, the increase in national health expenditures is close to the one provided in the Urban Institute's study(6.6 trillion). The next two parts will be on healthcare quality and debunking bullshit.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."