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
It's unaffordable with the current methods of funding the government. To support all these programs taxes would have to be raised, and not just for the rich. This of course is a big no no in US politics. Also Americans typical don't consider these things a right. When we think of human rights we usually look to the Constitution,out dated slavery mentioning old rag that it is. The rest of the world looks to the UN declaration of Human rights.
Edit: Speaking of our out dated Constitution The American Revolution was a mistake
edited 10th Feb '16 4:37:36 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.Nihlus is being hyperbolic again. To have an effective single-payer system, our country would need to:
- Ration healthcare. That means that not everyone would have access to all treatments and there would be waits for elective and/or non-critical procedures. You wouldn't necessarily be able to get approval for a $100,000 course of experimental treatment for some disease.
- Directly negotiate prices in a way that Medicare currently cannot. Medicaid, however, can.
- Substantially increase taxes on most Americans.
However, it should be noted that those taxes would take the place of the amounts we already pay for healthcare and health insurance. If you pay $5000 a year already for insurance and doctor's visits and whatnot, it would make no mathematical difference if you paid that amount to the government and received free treatment.
What Nihlus is disingenuously ignoring is that we already pay through the nose for healthcare in this country. Giving everyone access at Medicare rates would probably reduce overall spending due to a number of factors:
- Fewer patients would pay market rates for services. My hospital visit in 2014 would have been close to $200,000 at "list price". At insurer-negotiated rates, it was more like $12,000.
- Poorer individuals would no longer rely on emergency rooms for acute treatment, saving huge amounts of money that's usually taken straight from state funds since the people in question can't pay.
- The ridiculous web of bureaucracy and paperwork involved in medical billing and reimbursement would largely vanish.
The demand for healthcare is inelastic. If you are sick or have an accident, you need to get treatment. Putting all healthcare services under the Medicare or Medicaid umbrella would at worst be neutral in terms of its effect on gross expenditure within our economy. Since we are, currently, paying for it, we can continue to pay for it. It is absurd to insist that adopting single-payer would suddenly make healthcare costs exceed our GDP.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Again, it's a matter of total expenditure within our economy. One way, individuals and businesses pay for it. Another way, it's paid for with taxes. The net amount of money involved is the same.
Also, many (most?) single-payer systems still use private healthcare providers; the government simply takes the place of the insurer. To be sure, all the people working for insurance agencies would have to find new jobs (probably, many of them would be hired by the government), but the healthcare industry itself would remain much the same as it is.
Oh, and most of the people hired as medical billers would probably be out of work. Some losses are inevitable and that is an almost entirely parasitic part of the economy anyway. When the automobile came along and supplanted the horse, people who ran stables had to find new jobs. Change happens.
edited 10th Feb '16 5:23:39 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Obviously, they would not, and the resistance of the health insurance industry is the greatest single obstacle to single-payer. Gotta crack some eggs to make omelettes.
It should be noted that many of the rank-and-file workers in that industry could find new jobs, especially given how many public jobs would be created by the need to administer the new program. Part of the implementation would necessarily include retraining and severance packages for them. I can bear the suffering of the executives and shareholders with great fortitude.
edited 10th Feb '16 6:27:25 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Publicly-funded healthcare doesn't make private health insurance go away. Britain's private health insurance industry is thriving, and indeed many if not most consultants working for the NHS will also have a private practice.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.probably the only people who would loose jobs under a socialised health care system and the pencil pushers, bean counters and other managerial types only there to deal with insurance, the same goes for health insurance reps, and it would help bring the drugs industry under control
advancing the front into TV TropesJeb found his message: He's the anti-Trump
Of course, using the "I'm not as bad as the other guy" is quite possibly the dumbest thing to do.
It's like the Dogged Nice Guy saying he'll make a good boyfriend because he won't hit you.
edited 10th Feb '16 6:39:40 AM by NoName999
![]()
![]()
Drug development is stupidly expensive, but a lot of the cost is also in marketing to consumers so they'll bug their doctor to prescribe the new remedy. In a realm of private insurers, the government has no real way to intervene, but in a public insurance market, the drug companies would have to sell their wares to the bureaucrats instead and demonstrate why their fancy drug is worth $300 a bottle. Major cost savings there as well, and we would be bombarded by fewer "Ask your doctor about Expensalin, the new miracle cure for a full wallet!" ads.
I've heard the objection that this would hamper drug and device development, but other countries don't seem to have the same problem and they innovate just as much as we do.
edited 10th Feb '16 6:55:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Not even Sanders has discussed making the healthcare system itself public. He wants to make health insurance public. You know, like Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, etc...
That said, we do have a 100% nationalized healthcare program in the U.S.: the VA hospital system.
Also, most single-payer systems allow for the purchase of private insurance to cover more expensive treatment if the individual so desires, but such plans are not tax-deductible.
edited 10th Feb '16 7:37:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"School integration is making a comeback.
Only this time it's voluntary, and it's by socioeconomic status not race.
Reuters: Chris Christie is dropping out
.
Someone had to swallow his pride and set an example by leaving. Trump's success is a pretty epic case of Divided We Fall for the less crazy Republicans — if two of Rubio, Kasich and Bush follow suit soon, Trump and Cruz can perhaps still be barred from the nomination.
Of course, they better hope Carson doesn't quit too soon, since I expect those would be free votes for Cruz.
edited 10th Feb '16 8:53:41 AM by DrDougsh
On the subject of healthcare, the excess costs come from three main areas:
1. Administrative costs are massively higher for the US due to the maze of prices and billing systems. This is about 25%
of health care costs. Each hospital has a dozens to hundreds of clerks just to do the billing.
2. American doctors order far too many tests
, wasting $200-300 billion. Compared to other western nations, American doctors order twice as many MRI tests
for no medical benefit. Studies have estimated that about 10-20%
of surgeries, including about a quarter of cardiac surgeries, are unnecessary. The reason doctors do this is the costs are detached from the system, insurers pay based on number of procedures done, and doctors often have a profit incentive to perform unnecessary surgeries and tests. Speaking of which, American doctors are also paid over twice
what doctors are paid in Sweden or Finland and about 80% more than they're paid in Australia (speaking of which, American doctor and nurse unions can go screw themselves, seriously).
3. American hospitals have gotten into this vicious competition for the latest technology that results in horrendously high unnecessary costs. For example
◊, there are 12 state-of-the-art cardiac surgery centers in Milwaukee. That entire metro area only has one and a half million residents!
edited 10th Feb '16 9:21:09 AM by Nihlus1

Not just the West too.