Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yeah, not super sure of the topicality of this, but I have a concept of public healthcare that has confounded me for quite some time: why doesn't America have a single, unified, public healthcare system similar to the ones we have for military, police, coast guard, postal service, fire dept., etc.? Is there any country that has a system that puts the entire burden of healthcare on a state government? Is this a terrible idea for obvious reasons that I am missing? Would it be a better idea to make a sepperate OTC or other thread for this?
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."You're thinking of Universal Healthcare, which most other first world countries do have. It means that you have to pay higher taxes, in order to care for everyone appropriately. It's also something that people have been lobbying for, but conservatives shout out "SOCIALISM" and "COMMUNISM" at the top of their lungs, which shuts down any serious political discourse.
Hell, Obama had enough trouble getting the ACA to pass. It even went through the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. Republicans are still mad that it passed the SC. Now any state that's trying to get out of it is instead going to have the Feds setting it up in their state. Some have speculated that this might actually move us to UHC faster, though I'm not sure how accurate that is.
ONAB, we don't even have a central thing for fire and police. There are constant reports of people losing their homes because the fire department is underfunded, funded by an extra tax on the local govt which not everyone pays, and if you don't pay, they won't put the fire out.
It is abysmally stupid.
Additionally, ever since Reagan there has been a meme in american politics that you can't trust the federal government. You can trust the state government, but not the federal government. This completely discounts the fact that State govts tend to be more corrupt, and local ones really corrupt, but still.
Also, the Affordable Care Act puts the onus of providing care on the insurance companies. The states are only supposed to create "Exchanges" which would allow people to find the insurance plan which would be best for them. There's other stuff too, but it's not a direct universal care system in place by the states, with the exceptions of the ones who want to set one up, such as Vermont.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryBut every angle I've seen has presented universal healthcare as government funding of external doctors and hospitals. I'm wondering why we didn't consider healthcare one of government's duties from the outset? Why we don't take steps to bring doctors and nurses totally under the employ of state and federal government as we do military and police personnel, from training to deployment? What argument is there to separate healthcare from defense?
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."![]()
Money, Dear Boy. Insurance companies can't get rich off people if their health care doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
edited 6th Dec '12 7:36:01 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickUh. Healthcare and defense aren't the same thing.
Anyway, it's in part because of the idea that we take our own risks without involving others. As in the taxes that would pay for this would pay for services that not everyone would use. Nevermind that it's far more efficient to do so; it goes back to the conservative idea that we are ultimately responsible for our own lives.
This completely ignores random illnesses and maladies we're born with, or that children cannot consent to risks that cause them injuries, or any of the various other things that we simply cannot control. And also the fact that before the ACA was in place that insurance companies could drop you because of "lifetime limits" or "yearly limits" which would severely restrict the options a parent could choose for their child's health.
As for why we take care of military personnel that way; it's part of the benefits package for joining a potentially very deadly career. And Medicare is something that the elderly have spent their lifetimes paying into; it's something they've earned. Although Republicans are denying that fact now too.
Anyway. We are making BABY steps toward that sort of a system. Vermont is going straight up socialist, apparently, and the ACA is a step in the right direction, because we'll all be required to buy insurance or pay a penalty tax, thus spreading the cost of the burden around.
Well, for the most part, it's a problem which hasn't been addressed in america. I don't really know, frankly.
I do know that the pushback against it isn't always based on the knowledge that it's basically just funding for procedures rather than replacing all of the workers involved, but when it is, it's based on sometimes unfounded concerns. One poster on this site does not want UHC because it would "kill his brother" because doctors would want to operate on him more.
I don't really get it. :/
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryAce, I'm not saying they are the same thing, I'm saying that they're the same kind of thing. And, in a way, healthcare is actually defense, just against a domestic and unavoidable enemy.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."I can kind of get their point. The government uses taxes to protect us from fires (fire department), keep us from being killed (police), protect us from poisons and chemicals (FDA), provide us with easy access to knowledge (libraries and schools), save our environment (EPA), and ensure our national security (army). I fail to see why healthcare is unconstitutional when the government already uses taxes to provide for all these basic needs to improve society.
edited 6th Dec '12 7:53:30 PM by Kostya
I think Boehner anticipated this. That's why he's been purging House Committees of members closely aligned or in league with the Tea Party.
He's trying to reduce there influence, before they can reduce his.
edited 6th Dec '12 8:22:30 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Kostya, why would you think UHC is unconstitutional? Hell, the reason we don't have it yet is for a lot of reasons, but anyone claiming it's unconstitutional is flat out wrong, because there isn't anything about healthcare in the Constitution.
Hell, I think most of the reason we don't have it is for years it drew up comparisons to communism, and now it's an old conservative talking point.
After declaring something like the ACA constitutional, they'd have a lot less reason to declare UHC as such.
edited 6th Dec '12 9:02:49 PM by AceofSpades
The Republicans are not going to replace Boehner with someone else in more opposition to the president. Not if a sizable portion of the party would disagree.
The Speaker of the House represents the whole House, not the majority party. With 200+ Democratic votes, if Boehner shows more willingness to cooperate, the minority party will form a coalition to block any new nomination they find unreasonable.

PoliticsUSA.com would be a bit easier to take seriously if they didn't misspell "Sponsor" on their front page, above the ad section.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"