- Joined
- Mar 3, 2018
- Messages
- 16,876
- Reaction score
- 7,397
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
But people getting "free stuff", that conservatives think (or feel, rightly or wrongly), that somone besides them is getting, infuriates them, so can't have that. Sense be damned, Libs want it, NO COMPROMISE!:roll:
Yes Republicans must really hate Santa Claus all that free stuff
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.
What the hell does defense have to do with this? Do you realize that every other system in the world costs dramatically less per capita than ours, right? Your claim that the American military is what makes everyone else's healthcare affordable just makes you look stupid.
And no, we consistently rank nowhere near the top in quality of care, percentage insured, or healthcare outcomes. We're ranked 37th in performance, 1st in cost, and near dead last in percentage covered. [link]
What the hell does defense have to do with this? Do you realize that every other system in the world costs dramatically less per capita than ours, right? Your claim that the American military is what makes everyone else's healthcare affordable just makes you look stupid.
And no, we consistently rank nowhere near the top in quality of care, percentage insured, or healthcare outcomes. We're ranked 37th in performance, 1st in cost, and near dead last in percentage covered. [link]
(Source unknown)
Why We Need Publicly Financed Guaranteed Health Care
The FINANCIAL argument: It’s the smart, responsible thing to do.
1) We are wasting money by paying billions of dollars above what is spent on health
care. We pay high costs for unnecessary administrative overhead (for thousands of
private and myriad public programs), corporate profits, high salaries, marketing, and
lobbying.
2) There is a way to control costs and channel more of our money into actual health
care. A single payer system replaces skyrocketing costs to individuals and employers with affordable income and payroll taxes. Expenses are controlled through streamlined
administration, negotiation with service providers, bulk purchase of pharmaceuticals
and supplies, use of evidence-based best practices (eliminating unnecessary tests and
treatments), and needs-based planning for capital expenses. A cost-efficient, all-inclusivesystem saves money now spent on determining eligibility, adjusting individual
contributions, and excluding people from care. It’s cheaper to cover everyone.
3) Individuals benefit financially. Most people will pay less for health care than they
currently pay in premiums, deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses. No one will
be left uninsured and having to pay unaffordable medical bills when illness and
emergencies strike. No one will go bankrupt because of medical expenses.
4) Taxpayers get more for their money. What do taxpayers get now in exchange for
spending billions on private insurance for public employees? Cuts in public sector jobs
and services. As insurance plans have gotten more expensive, schools have had to cut
teachers, aides, counselors and nurses. High insurance costs have forced similar cuts
in other public agencies, from parks to the DMV. With a single-payer system, we would
be saving on health care expenses and getting more services from every public agency.
5) Employers have more money to invest in their businesses. The employer
contribution to the single-payer system will be less than the cost of private plans for
individual employees. With health benefits no longer tied to jobs, employers are spared
the time and expense of shopping for insurance and bargaining with unions over health benefits. Also, guaranteed health care encourages entrepreneurship and growth of small businesses.
6) A single-payer system strengthens the economy. Businesses will compete better
with countries that have universal health care. With less money spent on health care
benefits, employers can price products more competitively and hire more workers.
Expanded healthcare will require new jobs that cannot be outsourced.
1) We are wasting money by paying billions of dollars above what is spent on health
care. We pay high costs for unnecessary administrative overhead (for thousands of
private and myriad public programs), corporate profits, high salaries, marketing, and
lobbying.
4) Taxpayers get more for their money. What do taxpayers get now in exchange for
spending billions on private insurance for public employees?
5) Employers have more money to invest in their businesses. The employer
contribution to the single-payer system will be less than the cost of private plans for
individual employees.
6) A single-payer system strengthens the economy.
To play Devil's Advocate on a few points:
Much of the time, the rhetoric around what constitutes "unnecessary" costs is based on a poorly defined line. If the sweet spot for health costs is arbitrarily identified as other OECD nations, you could say we have too many hospitals, have wages that are too high, deliver too many services and have too much care capacity, and use too many new medicines and technologies or at least get them too quickly. Others might disagree with those characterizations.
Similarly, deciding wages in a particular employment sector (one that employs about 12% of the workforce) are too high and justify creating a monopsony buyer of labor with the explicit goal of pushing them down gets at pretty fundamental questions about the appropriate role and use of government.
Regardless, it's not credible to claim that concentrating more decision-making and health dollars in the public sector is going to lead to less lobbying. Observe the current feeding frenzy whenever a new CMS rule drops today. Then up that by an order of magnitude.
Health benefits are part of employee compensation, public sector or private. Reducing the value of those should result in correspondingly higher wages or other fringe benefits for employees (which is good!), not savings for taxpayers or employers. The only way the latter happens is if everyone takes a compensation cut.
What's the economy's largest industry?
The objective is to get everyone healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. If that is more expensive that depriving those who cannot afford it, so be it.
These lesser factory towns, scattered throughout the Northeast and Midwest, have endured the trauma of massive job losses without being able to invest the resources that even a Detroit can bring to bear against the indignities of deindustrialization.
Despite all that has happened, the unemployment numbers for most of these small cities don’t look as bad as you might expect them to. They are a bit higher than the numbers for the rest of the nation. . . Health care and social services made up the largest employment sector in all but two of the Lincoln Institute’s 24 cities; in some of them, they accounted for nearly half of all the jobs.
In place of those missing manufacturing jobs, the health-care and social assistance industries have nearly doubled in size, from 9.1 million in 1990 to just over 18 million today, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Today, the health care and social assistance industries are the largest employers in 34 states.
Manufacturing, agriculture and utilities, all of which employ mostly men, are projected to lose jobs over the next decade, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Meanwhile, nine of the 12 fastest-growing jobs in the U.S. are in health care, topped by occupational therapy assistants, physical therapy assistants and nurse practitioners, all positions that are held mostly by women.
OscarLevant said:But, funny thing, in almost every western developed nation that has UHC, or some variant, the per capita costs are roughly half of what it is in the USA. Now then, I know Americans are not as stingy with health care dollars as other countries, but it sure doesn't prove that UHC is more costly. If it is not more costly, then we should do it because it is the moral thing to do.
But if we stop protecting the other countries that rely on us to do national defense so they can provide UHC, they will have to stop. Not to mention the fact that capitalism is the only reason we provide all the best hospitals and major medical breakthroughs in the last half century. But if you want to condemn the entire world to poorer healthcare, starting with us, that's your call. You can vote how you want. I personally like having the best and think that our ability to provide protection for those who don't defend themselves isn't such a bad thing.
‘We can’t afford it’ makes no sense because it’s cheaper than what we have now.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?