Wokism idolizes socialism. They will be hoist by their own petard if history is any guide

[RealityChecker]

every first world nation that has single payer healthcare systems, provides better care at a fraction of the cost of the US system. Healthcare does not and can not operate under "free market" principles. It's not a commodity or a service. You can't shop around. You have a hear attack? you are going by ambulance to the nearest ER.

We do not have a free market healthcare system and have not been close to one for decades. Was the US Healthcare system back before the Federal government largely took it over back with LBJ's Great Society programs and the creation of a huge Federal bureaucracy [Medicare & Medicaid] cost ineffective? For the prior 50 years the average percent of the GDP going to healthcare was about 5% of GDP. Our healthcare system is largely over priced because of the Federal government's involvement. Obamacare just made an already corrupt via cronyism and government price fixing [via the CMS] scheme even more expensive for millions of middle class American families. We got a bit higher price but none of our needed medical bills were paid by our POS Bronze Obamacare plan. That is reality.

the ACA is not socialized medicine. It's is a regulatory bill on existing private insurance companies regarding minimum levels of coverage, maximum out of pocket costs to the insured etc. The ACA has been wildly successful in controlling the increasing costs of healthcare since it has been implemented. But it was never meant to, because it can't, fix our healthcare system. Only a single payer system would be able to.

Not for most middle class Americans who were not poor enough to qualify for the government subsidies. The only people happy with the ACA (aside from those who helped write the original law) are the poor and very sick people with expensive to treat ills [a.k.a. pre-existing conditions].

medicare for all is by definition a single payer system, and we know empirically that single payer systems are more efficient, provide better care and at a fraction of the cost as our current for profit system.

The truth is Medicare and Medicaid are being subsidized by cost shifting, which is driving up the cost of what is left of our over regulated and increasingly corrupt healthcare system.

 

[aociswundumho]

every first world nation that has single payer healthcare systems, provides better care at a fraction of the cost of the US system.

All of them have two-tiered systems: the public system for the proles, and a private system for everyone else. Some of those countries really, really hate the idea of a for-profit healthcare system, yet none of them outlaw private healthcare. They don't outlaw it, because if they did, people would be dying in the streets, and that would be politically embarrassing.

Healthcare does not and can not operate under "free market" principles. It's not a commodity or a service. You can't shop around. You have a hear attack? you are going by ambulance to the nearest ER.

1. Emergency care is like 1% of healthcare spending.

2. Healthcare operates quite well as a market. Nearly every country on the planet has a functioning and well-needed private (but highly regulated) healthcare market.

3. Healthcare is a service; a private good. From an economics perspective, a doctor working in a hospital fixing people is not that much different from a mechanic working in a shop fixing cars.

4. Even in emergency situations, people shop around for a ride to the hospital, instead of patronizing the local-government-protected ambulance monopoly.

 

[notquiteright]

No, you can't legally carry a gun at all, and hunting has nothing to do with gun control arguments. This is gun ownership in Sweden: That is nothing like the US. We have states where you can buy a gun and carry it without any permit or license whatsoever, because the government here trust us, whereas the Swedish government does not trust its subjects. It does bother me, because unpopular speech (which includes so-called hate speech) is precisely the kind of speech that requires protection. Anyone can read this article on censorship in Sweden and see that the US is much more free regarding speech. You have to look at disposable household income, and the US once again crushes Sweden: Compare that to the US:
It's no contest. The US is much richer and is more free than Sweden will ever be.

https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/sweden/

OECD Better Life Index

www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org

Being able to carry a firearm out in public is an issue for 'gun' rubbers, for the average American it isn't. To get a hunting license in many states you have to pass a hunter safety class unless you are prior service or LEO. You have to undergo a back round check to purchase a fire arm and be over 21 for a handgun so the 'trust' isn't as complete as some MAGAs try to claim...

Hate speech should be censored.

Disposable income isn't a good measure- your own sources have a different measure- the gap between the top 20% and lower 20% is 4 times in Sweden and 9 times in the USofA, so the access to disposable income is a very skewed number. For the majority of Americans higher per capita is a myth...

Compare healthcare costs and life expectancy. Compare citizen happiness. Compare voter turnout.

Again for the majority of Americans the wealth isn't there, life span is shorter, healthcare can bankrupt a family, voting isn't as important, and this is offset by the few who want to carry a firearm in public...

Not 'crushing it' by any means, but I can see where some MAGA wandumhoes would try and spin 'alternate facts'...

 

[rahl]

We do not have a free market healthcare system and have not been close to one for decades.

this is what I just said. Healthcare is not a free market system and can not operate like one.

Was the US Healthcare system back before the Federal government largely took it over back with LBJ's Great Society programs and the creation of a huge Federal bureaucracy [Medicare & Medicaid] cost ineffective? For the prior 50 years the average percent of the GDP going to healthcare was about 5% of GDP. Our healthcare system is largely over priced because of the Federal government's involvement. Obamacare just made an already corrupt via cronyism and government price fixing [via the CMS] scheme even more expensive for millions of middle class American families. We got a bit higher price but none of our needed medical bills were paid by our POS Bronze Obamacare plan. That is reality.

Not for most middle class Americans who were not poor enough to qualify for the government subsidies. The only people happy with the ACA (aside from those who helped write the original law) are the poor and very sick people with expensive to treat ills [a.k.a. pre-existing conditions].

The truth is Medicare and Medicaid are being subsidized by cost shifting, which is driving up the cost of what is left of our over regulated and increasingly corrupt healthcare system.

none of this is correct. it is an empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care than we do, and do it at a fraction of the cost.

 

[rahl]

All of them have two-tiered systems: the public system for the proles, and a private system for everyone else.

no they don't.

Some of those countries really, really hate the idea of a for-profit healthcare system, yet none of them outlaw private healthcare. They don't outlaw it, because if they did, people would be dying in the streets, and that would be politically embarrassing.

1. Emergency care is like 1% of healthcare spending.

2. Healthcare operates quite well as a market. Nearly every country on the planet has a functioning and well-needed private (but highly regulated) healthcare market.

3. Healthcare is a service; a private good. From an economics perspective, a doctor working in a hospital fixing people is not that much different from a mechanic working in a shop fixing cars.

4. Even in emergency situations, people shop around for a ride to the hospital, instead of patronizing the local-government-protected ambulance monopoly.

healthcare can not and does not operate as a market, for the reasons I have already outlined. your points 3 and 4 show you have zero understanding of economics, or how markets operate. Healthcare is not in any shape or fashion, a market good, commodity or service. The only thing you would be able to consider as such, would be elective cosmetic surgery.

 

[RealityChecker]

this is what I just said. Healthcare is not a free market system and can not operate like one.

And yet the USA's healthcare care system was in fact largely free market for decades until the advent of Medicare and Medicaid run by the Federal government. Before that the Federal government largely ran the healthcare of Native Americans on reservation where the life expectancy for men is lower than many third world countries and the VA, which most people are more familiar with because of its poor handling of the healthcare of US veterans.

none of this is correct. it is an empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care than we do, and do it at a fraction of the cost.

Here it is again so tell us specifically why you claim any of this is incorrect?:

"Was the US Healthcare system back before the Federal government largely took it over back with LBJ's Great Society programs and the creation of a huge Federal bureaucracy [Medicare & Medicaid] cost ineffective? For the prior 50 years the average percent of the GDP going to healthcare was about 5% of GDP. Our healthcare system is largely over priced because of the Federal government's involvement. Obamacare just made an already corrupt via cronyism and government price fixing [via the CMS] scheme even more expensive for millions of middle class American families. We got a bit higher price but none of our needed medical bills were paid by our POS Bronze Obamacare plan. That is reality.

Not for most middle class Americans who were not poor enough to qualify for the government subsidies. The only people happy with the ACA (aside from those who helped write the original law) are the poor and very sick people with expensive to treat ills [a.k.a. pre-existing conditions].

The truth is Medicare and Medicaid are being subsidized by cost shifting, which is driving up the cost of what is left of our over regulated and increasingly corrupt healthcare system." RealityChecker

 

[rahl]

And yet the USA's healthcare care system was in fact largely free market for decades until the advent of Medicare and Medicaid run by the Federal government. Before that the Federal government largely ran the healthcare of Native Americans on reservation where the life expectancy for men is lower than many third world countries and the VA, which most people are more familiar with because of its poor handling of the healthcare of US veterans.

Here it is again so tell us specifically why you claim any of this is incorrect?:

"Was the US Healthcare system back before the Federal government largely took it over back with LBJ's Great Society programs and the creation of a huge Federal bureaucracy [Medicare & Medicaid] cost ineffective? For the prior 50 years the average percent of the GDP going to healthcare was about 5% of GDP. Our healthcare system is largely over priced because of the Federal government's involvement. Obamacare just made an already corrupt via cronyism and government price fixing [via the CMS] scheme even more expensive for millions of middle class American families. We got a bit higher price but none of our needed medical bills were paid by our POS Bronze Obamacare plan. That is reality.

Not for most middle class Americans who were not poor enough to qualify for the government subsidies. The only people happy with the ACA (aside from those who helped write the original law) are the poor and very sick people with expensive to treat ills [a.k.a. pre-existing conditions].

The truth is Medicare and Medicaid are being subsidized by cost shifting, which is driving up the cost of what is left of our over regulated and increasingly corrupt healthcare system." RealityChecker

Advances in medical science and the ability to prolong a persons life with new technology is not even remotely comparable to 70 years ago. Healthcare is not a commodity or service which is why it can’t and doesn’t function efficiently in a free market system. Which is why every other first world nation with single payer provides better care than us at a fraction of the cost we pay.

 

[RealityChecker]

Advances in medical science and the ability to prolong a persons life with new technology is not even remotely comparable to 70 years ago.

Well your not good at math as Medicare and Medicaid started 56 years ago (July 1965). That is reality. But it is certainly true that there are far medical diagnostic tests and treatments available today that when the Federal got involved in a major way with the US healthcare industry, right? Also, demographic changes and expansion of Medicare and & Medicaid eligibility have resulted in a far greater % of Americans having their medical care largely mandated by the Federal government's healthcare bureaucracy.

So if you go back for the 56 years before the Federal government socialized medical care, it was also true that the US population was getting older and medical diagnostic tests and treatments were increasing, right? Indeed, life expectancy increased far more during those 56 years than the next 56 years. Do you deny that reality?

And yet the % of GDP going to healthcare from 1909 to 1965 remained close to 5% of GDP.

Healthcare is not a commodity or service which is why it can’t and doesn’t function efficiently in a free market system.

Actually healthcare is a combinations of goods and services and it is absurd to claim it is not. The fact the % of GDP going to healthcare remained close to 5% of GDP from 1909 to 1965, and then (for some reason) healthcare expenditures started increasing far faster than did the GDP in July 1965 and increased to nearly 19% from 1965 to today cannot be explained by the false claim that healthcare goods and services are not goods and services.

Which is why every other first world nation with single payer provides better care than us at a fraction of the cost we pay.

Largely because the US is paying far more for the same goods and services as other countries. You seem to want to blame the free market for this far higher cost of healthcare in the US and yet the history of when healthcare goods and services started increasing far faster than GDP started after 1965. If you want to pretend the Federal government's huge increase in its involvement in the US healthcare industry was not a major factor in causing this increasingly cost inefficiency you'll need to explain what changed in 1965 that you believe led to healthcare expenditures rising 3-4X faster than the US GDP?

 

[rahl]

Well your not good at math as Medicare and Medicaid started 56 years ago (July 1965). That is reality. But it is certainly true that there are far medical diagnostic tests and treatments available today that when the Federal got involved in a major way with the US healthcare industry, right? Also, demographic changes and expansion of Medicare and & Medicaid eligibility have resulted in a far greater % of Americans having their medical care largely mandated by the Federal government's healthcare bureaucracy.

So if you go back for the 56 years before the Federal government socialized medical care, it was also true that the US population was getting older and medical diagnostic tests and treatments were increasing, right? Indeed, life expectancy increased far more during those 56 years than the next 56 years. Do you deny that reality?

And yet the % of GDP going to healthcare from 1909 to 1965 remained close to 5% of GDP.

Actually healthcare is a combinations of goods and services and it is absurd to claim it is not. The fact the % of GDP going to healthcare remained close to 5% of GDP from 1909 to 1965, and then (for some reason) healthcare expenditures started increasing far faster than did the GDP in July 1965 and increased to nearly 19% from 1965 to today cannot be explained by the false claim that healthcare goods and services are not goods and services.

Largely because the US is paying far more for the same goods and services as other countries. You seem to want to blame the free market for this far higher cost of healthcare in the US and yet the history of when healthcare goods and services started increasing far faster than GDP started after 1965. If you want to pretend the Federal government's huge increase in its involvement in the US healthcare industry was not a major factor in causing this increasingly cost inefficiency you'll need to explain what changed in 1965 that you believe led to healthcare expenditures rising 3-4X faster than the US GDP?

it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this failed and refuted argument. It remains an empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care than we do, at a fraction of what we pay.

 

[RealityChecker]

it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this failed and refuted argument. It remains an empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care than we do, at a fraction of what we pay.

In order to refute my argument you need to provide something besides your unsubstantiated opinion. Can you name a single thing I stated in my prior post that was out of sync with reality?

If government is better at efficiently delivering quality goods and services than free enterprise how is it Fedex and UPS are growing while the US Postal Service is shrinking? Why has healthcare increased far faster than the GDP after the Federal government got involved in the healthcare industry big time in 1965? And yet the US during that time actually went from having the best healthcare in the world to now far from the top? Health improved dramatically in the USA in the prior 56 years while remaining a mere 5% of GDP. It appears that UNTI the Federal government greatly expanded its role in healthcare that the cost of healthcare starting to rise far faster than the GDP. Why? So far you have no cogent rebuttal to anything I have stated. Please try to support your opinions with some credible evidence and logic.

 

[rahl]

In order to refute my argument you need to provide something besides your unsubstantiated opinion.

this was settled a very long time ago

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

 

[RealityChecker]

this was settled a very long time ago

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?

Americans are living shorter, unhealthier lives. Yet, the United States outspends other wealthy nations when it comes to health care, according to a new Commonwealth Fund report. This analysis compares the U.S. to 10 other high-income nations on spending, outcomes, risk factors, and quality.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Incorrect. In fact your "evidence" actually shows what I stated was correct.

Take a look at the first figure that shows that in 1980 the US was spending a bit more than 8% of its GDP on healthcare. Only slightly higher than that of those other 10 countries. Now if that figure went back to the start of 1965, you would see that the US was then spending about 5% of its GDP on healthcare, which was more or less in line with those other 10 countries.

Now if you go back to 1909 the US was way back also then spending about 5% of its then much smaller GDP on healthcare. Back then healthcare was almost entirely free enterprise with very little government involvement and no Federal government involvement at all. It was not until July of 1965 when Medicare and Medicaid started and the US Federal government socialized a huge chunk of healthcare spending that we began to see the US healthcare system spending growing far faster than the GDP and pulling away from those other 10 countries.

So since US healthcare spending was hovering around 5% of GDP for decades clearly the reason it suddenly started increasing far faster than the GDP cannot be free market capitalism can it? Had the US not socialized its healthcare via LBJ's huge expansion of government control of it it is unlikely we would have seen US healthcare spending grow 3-4X faster than the GDP over the past 56 years. Do you have an explanation of how the marked reduction of free enterprise and the marked increase in Federal government takeover and regulation of the US healthcare industry is evidence it is free enterprise caused this to happen? I don't think so.

I'll tell you what caused it and that was the corrupt activities of politicians ( Rs & Ds) catering to the "special interests" the AMA, Big Pharma, hospitals, medical equipment makers, the health insurance industry, etc. that caused the rapid rise in the % of GDP going to healthcare. It was socialized medicine combined with corrupt cronyism that caused the problem. That is reality.

 

[rahl]

Incorrect. In fact your "evidence" actually shows what I stated was correct.

Take a look at the first figure that shows that in 1980 the US was spending a bit more than 8% of its GDP on healthcare. Only slightly higher than that of those other 10 countries. Now if that figure went back to the start of 1965, you would see that the US was then spending about 5% of its GDP on healthcare, which was more or less in line with those other 10 countries.

Now if you go back to 1909 the US was way back also then spending about 5% of its then much smaller GDP on healthcare. Back then healthcare was almost entirely free enterprise with very little government involvement and no Federal government involvement at all. It was not until July of 1965 when Medicare and Medicaid started and the US Federal government socialized a huge chunk of healthcare spending that we began to see the US healthcare system spending growing far faster than the GDP and pulling away from those other 10 countries.

So since US healthcare spending was hovering around 5% of GDP for decades clearly the reason it suddenly started increasing far faster than the GDP cannot be free market capitalism can it? Had the US not socialized its healthcare via LBJ's huge expansion of government control of it it is unlikely we would have seen US healthcare spending grow 3-4X faster than the GDP over the past 56 years. Do you have an explanation of how the marked reduction of free enterprise and the marked increase in Federal government takeover and regulation of the US healthcare industry is evidence it is free enterprise caused this to happen? I don't think so.

I'll tell you what caused it and that was the corrupt activities of politicians ( Rs & Ds) catering to the "special interests" the AMA, Big Pharma, hospitals, medical equipment makers, the health insurance industry, etc. that caused the rapid rise in the % of GDP going to healthcare. It was socialized medicine combined with corrupt cronyism that caused the problem. That is reality.

So you didn’t read it. Figures. Anyway, reality remains. It is an empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care than we do at a fraction of the cost we pay.

 

[RealityChecker]

So you didn’t read it. Figures. Anyway, reality remains. It is an empirical fact that single payer systems provide better care than we do at a fraction of the cost we pay.

You seemed confused about what we are debating. Am I arguing about whether or not the US healthcare system is ripping off most Americans? Nope. You are claiming the US has a free market healthcare system and all other countries have single payer healthcare that cost less and yet net-net people in those countries are living as long or longer on average than Americans. That is silly.

First off the US healthcare system is not a free market system. It was largely up until 1965 and for those prior 56 years Americans spent about 5% of their GDP on healthcare. Today healthcare has become far more socialized in America and it has increased to over 18% of GDP. As the data in figure #1 of what you posted showed US healthcare by 1980 had risen to a bit more than 8% of the GDP and became a bit higher than that of other 10 countries. Again looking at your graph you can see US healthcare spending increased far faster than those other 10 countries and has more than doubled since 1980 as a percent of the GDP. Why? You simplistic claim that the US healthcare system is more expensive than that of other countries because it is a free market and the other countries are single payer government run only healthcare has been debunked by aociswumdumbho in his Post #77. None of these 10 countries have only a single payor system and the US has become increasingly a government paid for healthcare system and yet prices are rising even faster here than in those other countries.

The reason we pay far more are complex but it is not because our system is a free market and theirs are a single payor. Why does our government pay far more for the same drugs as do government's in other countries?

So my question to you is why has healthcare spending per capita in the USA increased so much faster as a % of GDP than in every other country starting in 1965? It cannot because other countries have become more government paid and we have become less government paid healthcare systems. Why? Because during the past 56 years the role of the US government in our healthcare system increased far more than it did in those other 10 countries. And for the 56 years before this massive increase in our Federal government's control of the US healthcare industry and when it was largely a free market healthcare system Americans spent a fairly constant 5% of the GDP on healthcare.

If more government run healthcare controls costs then why did the socialization of so much of the US healthcare system [and reduction in free market market healthcare] result in the USA experiencing far more rapid rise in costs as a % of GDP than that of many other countries?