Well, looking at places like Venezuela should give you the answer. As the government goes, so does healthcare. Do you want healthcare to be subject to spending cuts and government bureaucracy as we know it?
It’s fine in small little rich countries like Luxembourg or Denmark. But there seems to be an upper weight limit to the success of socialized medicine. It would never work in a country as large as the U.S.
Not really. That’s a tangent we went on.
If you are in chronic constant pain, you damn right you want it now… That’s something no one can understand unless they have lived it. Waiting on the government to shoe you in is not an appealing option. And when they are in charge they do it the cheapest and shitiest way possible.
So in a hypothetical where Venezuela’s government fails and healthcare isn’t public, you genuinely believe that changes anything?
And that’s setting aside the obvious flaws of comparing a first world country like America to a barely 2nd world country like Venezuela. Why didn’t you compare it to another first world country I wonder?
Absolutely.
Ah so here’s where we say other countries success doesn’t apply to us. So when someone fails it means so would we, when someone succeeds it’s means we wouldn’t.
People need to make up their mind. They can have fast high quality healthcare, or they can have slower cheaper healthcare. You can’t have both.
As opposed to the current system that does the exact same thing? Have you never met anyone that actually works in healthcare?
Yeah, me.
Way to miss the point. And yes they do have government healthcare and its collapsing at an astonishing rate…
Feel free to bet on your life. Don’t bet on mine, cause that’s dumb.
You’ve never had a serious health issue, I have. But just wait, you will. Then tell me how you want to handle it. Slow, shitty and underfunded. I expect you to hold to that…
People have made up their minds. They prefer the former. Only people who don’t have health issues think the latter because they are shortsighted and think they will be 28 forever.
Then it seems silly to say “when they are in charge they do it the cheapest and shitiest way possible” given the current people in charge do things the cheapest and shittiest ways possible.
Lol what is the point exactly? The GOVERNMENT is collapsing. In a scenario where the US government is collapsing, we’ve got hella bigger worries than our health coverage. Especially considering so much of healthcare is subsidized by the government already.
Respectfully, you don’t know shit about me. It’s adorable that you think you do though. Mostly hilarious, but a sprinkle of adorable
Also, to my knowledge, no country has outlawed additional coverage and/or getting taken care of elsewhere. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
And, ya know, the majority of first world countries
Also, you’re correct. People have made up their minds.
No, they don’t. Actually it’s the opposite. They want you to opt for the more expensive option almost every time if possible. And insurance happily complies most of the time and unhappily if mandated by the doctor which gives them no opt out to paying for it.
I work in the industry and I have been to more doctors than I can possibly remember… They push the expensive, usually better shit, when they can. Everybody makes more money that way…
You never have bigger worries than your health… NEVER. When you don’t have your health, then you will know.
33%? That means 67% don’t. Math…
And 10 years ago it was…? (Also note I agreed with you that people had made up their minds, seems silly to be a dick to someone agreeing with you)
I’m not saying universal health care will happen in the next 5 years, but certainly in your lifetime.
Which has absolutely no impact on hospitals/insurance finding the cheapest and shittiest way to deliver you X service. If there’s a shortcut available, they’ll be happy to oblige.
Again, you don’t know shit about me lol.
Don’t people in first world countries with universal HC have longer life expectancy and cheaper per-capita costs?
I think the longer life expectancy thing is better explained with culture and lifestyle differences, but cheaper per capita, yes.
edit: Ultimately it’s just the furthest expression of group buying power. That’s all any form of socialism really is. Group efficiency.
What experience with the US’s Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare VA Hospitals etc… gives you the least bit of confidence that it will work well here?
Healthcare in the US is not rationed. So of course it’s more expensive. The US contains 5% of the world’s population but consumes 75% of the world’s prescription drugs. Just look at the backlash of the Trump administration trying to cut opiate perscriptions.
Also as @Mufasa so elegantly put it we “try to save Grandpa.” With super expensive futile end of life care. Other countries don’t. Same thing with premature babies.
He’ll they’re aborting downs babies on purpose in Scandinavian countries. That saves a great deal I’m sure.
Doesn’t help that the US population is incredibly fat and sedentary either.
I’ve been on Medicaid. At 21 with a 6 week early baby and a fiance. All of the above entities WORK absolutely. Do they “work” to the standard of private (ie, much more expensive per capita) insurance? Of course not. Are all of the above constantly being jerked around via politics killing their efficiencies? Abso-fuckin-lutely.
Countries with successful UHC go damn near all in on it. It might not be 95% backing on every issue, but it’s a hellava lot more than the 60% America generally operates on. UHC is only viable in a scenario where Republicans buy in and don’t try to sabotage to prove the free market is the only way.
While I would hope limits for opiates would be written into law (forced crackdown on most opiate problems), it wouldn’t be necessary for UHC to be much much cheaper per capita.
America has far too much Jesus to stop trying to save premature babies (I should know, I had 2), but I would fully hope and expect the super expensive futile EoL care to be available by aftermarket purchase only.
See above lol.
We’re also incredibly wealthy, and already used to spending far more than UHC would cost. How much of it gets funded from the ability to dissolve all of the current insurance-esque institutions alone?
At a national level, UHC is about buying power and collective efficiency. In a scenario where Republicans actually buy in (imo over a decade away, maybe 2),
Ignoring the obvious benefits of dropping the horrible efficiency ACA shit, what does Bernie’s stupid over the top idea cost? 2.2T? Bring it to something more realistic than “show up to your dr with a card” that may include small copays for visits/Rx and some of the more realistic ones come in at like 1.8-1.9T
Could make up that difference in defense spending… just sayin 
Culture and lifestyle differences are critical. This is also one reason why universal healthcare is not easily comparable across countries: there are different loads on different systems due to both population and lifestyle/culture. One compounds the other–economies of scale on its head. A hugely populated country with obesity issues (or any health epidemic) will have exponentially more cost associated with it than a small one. Any vices the population may have are multiplied several fold by the size of the population.
If you have a small, relatively homogenous population economic loads and risk factors are easier to estimate. If you have a small population with similar backgrounds, culture, and lifestyle you have an easier time. If you have a large, heterogeneous, multicultural, and diverse population you have exponentially more confounding factors.
Also “cheaper per capita” is a reaaaaaally sketchy claim. You have to take into account not only the population as mentioned above, not only tax rates vs. out of pocket premiums (socialized countries have smaller premiums…but significantly larger tax rates so is the bottom line really that different?), but you also have to take into account the survival rates from diseases like cancers, and the level of innovation a country experiences in medical advances.
Then you have to make a determination on which you find more important.
In practice and in economic principle, yup.
Tbh I’m of the opinion that if cancer/-insert high fatality rate here- is diagnosed beyond a certain stage (egghead numbers, idk the survival rate/cost ratio) universal HC shouldn’t cover it. That’s what aftermarket is for
Solid post. Of course I disagree that one more government program will make US healthcare better. But no need to go around 100 posts with everyone citing competing sources about why their right.
There will be no Republican support for universal healthcare until they are nearly 100% out of power and desperate. If UHC happens it will be an untouchable monolith of demagoguery. Want to decrease the rate of growth next year by 1.5%= “They are taking away your doctors!!!”.
Don’t worry. You can hasten the demise of the Republicans by making sure illegals keep getting counted in the census.
One reason is that they look at their health as being their responsibility and not a doctor’s.
universal HC in those instances may only account for a small portion of their life expectancy - they actually might have healthier lifestyles and diets to begin with which would contribute more to life expectancy and less need to seek treatment for chronic diseases … what I’m saying is correlation <> causation and there are many other, more impactful contributing factors.
