-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Do Poor People Have a Right to Health Care? (NYT Editorial Board)
- Thread starter entremet
- Start date
It does. Hell I had someone take it a step forward and say it depends what kind of job people have as to whether or not they deserve it.
Ironically, it's such a bloated and inefficient system that it's actually way more than if we just had socialized care.
I sometimes think I might like to move to America someday but not until the healthcare system improves.
The idea of paying taxes to fund a crazy bloated defense budget while people are turned down life saving treatments is insane to me.
The idea of paying taxes to fund a crazy bloated defense budget while people are turned down life saving treatments is insane to me.
I think you underestimate the real costs of Healthcare if you think "community" is the answer. Yes, communities may be more fractured, but Doctors don't make house calls anymore either. Every part of Healthcare is associated with a conglomerate that would be more than happy to bleed any community dry of charity. The whole system needs to be torn down and rebuilt. If there was a way for an ER to charge $200/hour and only make you pay for the 15 minutes you actually spend with the doctor, then yes, I'd agree with turning to the community, but that is not the reality.
Last edited:
...
Maybe?
Services that are provided by the American government(s) tend to be vastly more inefficient than comparable services in other nations.
The USA just does not focus on cost control, only revenue.
Brilliant, the MAGA defense. How convenient that this idyllic time period that you pine for had legally enforced segregation through Jim Crow laws, because that's definitely not what you've been hinting at with all this cultural homogeneous crap.
Even a basic understanding of public health systems will always lead to yes. Digging deeper than basic step one " duh it's expensive " logic will inform you that public health systems are an ecosystem of sorts . What affects one person will often affect another.
So even if you are an ASSHOLE and think people who can't work or afford healthcare don't deserve it statistics show their poor health drags you down too.
Ex1 - poor family A can't afford treatments for their sick kid and even transportation. Their kid therefore isn't vaccinated against illnesses. Think how this affects society.
Ex2- person B can't afford treatments to cure a preventable disease and walks around society in a continuing state of infection
Ex 3 - person C has no sick time at work and is forced to attend work sick in a regular basis.
Ex4 - person D has a significant injury but can't afford treatments. They constantly attend hospitals they can't afford. They end up declaring bankruptcy
Ex5- person E has a significant mental illness but is never treated. They end up on permanent disability or homeless. Their interactions with heath care are limited to police, ambulance, emergency services, and prisons.
Tell me now please in which of these scenarios where universal health is actually more expensive. Everyone , even the rich life expectancy is affected by examples 1,2.
To summarize, I love America but you need to sort your shit out starting with learning how to use valid studies to inform policy . Without that you're lost
So even if you are an ASSHOLE and think people who can't work or afford healthcare don't deserve it statistics show their poor health drags you down too.
Ex1 - poor family A can't afford treatments for their sick kid and even transportation. Their kid therefore isn't vaccinated against illnesses. Think how this affects society.
Ex2- person B can't afford treatments to cure a preventable disease and walks around society in a continuing state of infection
Ex 3 - person C has no sick time at work and is forced to attend work sick in a regular basis.
Ex4 - person D has a significant injury but can't afford treatments. They constantly attend hospitals they can't afford. They end up declaring bankruptcy
Ex5- person E has a significant mental illness but is never treated. They end up on permanent disability or homeless. Their interactions with heath care are limited to police, ambulance, emergency services, and prisons.
Tell me now please in which of these scenarios where universal health is actually more expensive. Everyone , even the rich life expectancy is affected by examples 1,2.
To summarize, I love America but you need to sort your shit out starting with learning how to use valid studies to inform policy . Without that you're lost
That's fair, I concede I have some ignorance when it comes to the complete costs of healthcare, but I also don't agree the community should be the only thing taking part when it comes to assistance. Normally for most of the people I would say they are expected to pay for it but considering we are mostly discussing the poor and the disabled that's a different story.
However, you reminded me of something. I recall learning about how hospitals and such overcharge people an extreme amount in order to make up for insurance companies that wanted discounts for bringing patients to said hospitals. So instead of giving everyone healthcare and trying to pay the crazy bill, I think we should work on why the bill is so high to begin with, since hospitals used to just charge the cost of treatment plus a bit more for a profit but now I see how it can be outrageous and with specifically the poor in mind I can agree on this issue. We should focus on hospitals and those companies first though, I think. But yeah, I would say for the most part you've convinced me on this, or at least leaned me more toward your side. I wonder though, aren't there some poor people living off of the government? How much do people get in welfare checks and such? Forgive my ignorance.
Furthermore, what's the argument when it comes to poor people not being able to have an education? A college education I can understand but that's around 12 years (possibly longer) for the parents of an individual and/or said individual to save up the funds needed and/or get out of their situation.
No, it hasn't been what I have been hinting at. I thought it was evident I am against homogeneity. Segregation just creates homogeneity and that's not particularly what I am in favor of. Other countries have homogeneity and this system works due to sharing similar views, and all I said is that it is harder in our country due to to the lack of homogeneity but that doesn't mean I want it. I just feel people should find something they can all rally around while maintaining their diversity.
That idyllic time period doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the atrocities that happened. In the sense that I do not believe that it was so great due to the segregation and the awful deeds that happened. America wasn't great BECAUSE of all the segregation and racism, all of that should be condemned. I just believe that the time period did have some good, just as it definitely had quite a lot of bad. It had ideas and values I agree with, while also having some I heavily disagree with. To think of the past as only good or bad defeats the purpose of examining history. The good and the bad being separated in this case. Even then, I wasn't even particularly thinking of the segregation era anyway, I was thinking the very late 1900s, like the 1970s-1990s. I don't think people should only stick with people of similar cultures, I embrace diversity. I just feel we all need to find common ground and try to retain American values that were once held by almost everyone.
Last edited:
Oh please. If you were suffering from a chronic illness or had a loved one in that situation you wouldn't be making this calm, distant sort of argument. We're all human beings made of squishy parts that will need healthcare at some point in our lives.
Other countries make it work. FFS, Canada makes it work. Your argument for it only really working for homogenous societies is disingenuous.
Where else would we have to make concessions. Are you not aware that people already pay for health insurance out of their paychecks?
How about that money goes to taxes too fund healthcare for all instead? I will happily pay more sales taxes for purchases I can control rather than possibly going bankrupt over a illness I likely can't control.
I appreciate your well reasoned argument, but I have to admit that your distant take on a matter that affects everyone is aggravating.
The second bolded bit reeks of "Yeah, I guess it sucks for people with disabilities. Oh well, I'm not one of them so it's just a thought exercise for me!"
Then we can change the survivor mentality this country has. One can argue it doesn't really work in the modern day, anyway.
The bottom line is, people like GoreMagala (and looking from the outside many Americans) would rather have those extra tax dollars for themselves than to help their fellow man. I'm not sure how you can even change that sort of mindset because it just seems like a basic lack of empathy for others less fortunate.
As an Australian I simply see it as a necessity, one that benefits society, as I'm part of that society I also gain those benefits. Will I miss money taken from my pay each fortnight, not really, it's 2% of my taxable income.... that's right, 2%. That money will go towards helping those less fortunate than I (as well as myself if I need it). I worry that people can be so callous as to deny other people medical care based on their circumstances, often out of their control.
As an Australian I simply see it as a necessity, one that benefits society, as I'm part of that society I also gain those benefits. Will I miss money taken from my pay each fortnight, not really, it's 2% of my taxable income.... that's right, 2%. That money will go towards helping those less fortunate than I (as well as myself if I need it). I worry that people can be so callous as to deny other people medical care based on their circumstances, often out of their control.
Here is the thing. I am pretty sure our government already directly spends more per capital than any other nation on health Care. If I am correct on that assertion, there is no reason why taxes would need to go up to provide universal care.
I dunno, man. The public in the UK supports it now, but what's to stop another campaign like the pro-leave Brexit one from convincing people over time to get rid of the NHS? With the austerity measures already happening in the UK and the projected economic costs of Brexit, won't people in the country have fewer resources? It's easier to convince people to get rid of something like NHS when they have even less than they used to as long as you use the right argument. Considering how effective the argument against Others were for Brexit, I can imagine the same thing could work against NHS.
Not that I'm saying I hope that happens. I wish you guys the best in dealing with Brexit and other detrimental changes going on across the Atlantic.
Oh, but it's easy. All you need to do is lack the empathy and imagination to ever be able to yourself needing some major medical procedure to save your life that you can't afford. I see this attitude most among men in their 20's and 30's. They think that just because they haven't really needed to go to the doctor so far in their lives, they will never need that. That or they can't postpone the gratification of a few extra bucks on their paycheck for a lifetime of guaranteed healthcare.
The extent to which this kind of unimaginative viewpoint disgusts me is difficult to express in words that aren't just a string of expletives.
I read a story about a guy in his early 20's who discovered he had prostate cancer. Needless to say, it changed his outlook on life. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. But man, sometimes I wonder what it will take some people to understand the necessity of accessible and affordable healthcare for all without having to deal with major illnesses themselves. It's like, really? Really?
Last edited:
I don't know if the government does, but I know our society as a whole does. I think it's roughly double the next highest. We could easily afford it with a tax increase that is the same or lower than the average premium that it replaces. But even champions like Sanders don't mention that because it doesn't translate well to a sound bite.
Lol, people don't even know what a right is. Rights aren't born with us, they're things we bestow on to society because they make sense. Without rights, a lot of people in this forum probably wouldn't even exist.
So for the question, the answer would be no but yes. No human deserves healthcare outright, but it's logical to give them it.
So for the question, the answer would be no but yes. No human deserves healthcare outright, but it's logical to give them it.
You're probably right and maybe taxes wouldn't actually go up, but that seems to be a major talking point for those opposed to universal healthcare in the US. In their minds the prospect of paying a single dollar more in taxes to help those who don't work as hard as them (obviously not true, bootstrap mentality is juvenile) is out of the question.
Out of interest, how much does health insurance cost the average American? At 2% of my income, it's really not much is it, I'd be surprised if it was proportionally less in the US.
Heck, just change the question to the natural end of things and make it "Do the poor deserve to live?" 5-4, no.
That's a hypothetical future, and frankly it's one that I agree will likely happen in the coming years. The Tories are deliberately underfunding the NHS to lower quality/levels of service in order to make the "alternative" of private healthcare look better. However, right now, there really isn't too much debate at all in regards to the existence of the NHS throughout the general public. If a politician were to campaign on the privatisation of the NHS it would be political suicide no matter whether they were Labour or Conservative. The EU, on the other hand, has been a point of contention since the joining referendum back in 1973. It'll be years before the NHS gets to that point and years after that before people can legitimately be tricked into wanting to privatise the NHS (though personally I think it'll happen eventually whether we want it or not).
Most services that are considered inefficient are those that are delegated to the states or local authorities: Medicaid, all housing assistance, every block granted program.
The VA is a mixed bag. But one of the most successful government programs, VASH (a housing program for veterans experiencing homelessness), is directly administered by the federal government.
Napkin math:
Salary - 55000
Employer Subsidy - 13200
total compensation - 68200
Employer Subsidy -13200
Employee Responsibility - 4800
total premium cost - 18000
About 26%
That doesn't include the $3500 deductible that I'm responsible for before insurance starts paying for anything other than preventative care.
*This is for a family of 4, so the percentage decreases if my wife's income rises.
I apologize, I've alwaye been a very distant type of person. I find it hard to relate to or sympathize with people, as well as generally feel much emotion. I've always been more of a cold, logical, and apathetic type of person. I'm sorry for aggravating you and I thank you for appreciating my argument.
Honestly, I wouldn't know what I would do in that situation. I would probably do what I can in order to try to get treatment for my illness or the illness of a loved one. Obviously that would be a priority and I would do my best to get it. Ultimately, I don't know what I would do if I couldn't afford it. Knowing me, I would probably just accept it and do what I can with what I have. Alternatively, maybe I would be miserable and pity myself and the unfortunate situation, I don't know. Although I think that likely won't be the experiences that others have. To be fair and I guess to state my bias, I guess I've just been desensitized to it all. Not to mention, talking about survivor mentality, my parents basically risked and sacrificed everything to leave Cuba so that I could get open-heart surgery here in the United States (to my knowledge I don't think they had the ability to perform the procedure there). But, that's all anecdotal.
As for your next two points about other countries making it work and other concessions, I can agree and concede. Another member a while ago persuaded me in favor of his and your side a bit more. To my knowledge the issue seems to lie with banks overcharging patients due insurance companies demanding discounts. I believe in some hospitals a $1 IV bag costed a patient like $157, I can agree that's a bit ridiculous. With that I think the aim should be focused on both hospitals and the insurance companies.
You have a reasonable point with what you said about tax. However I'm still apprehensive on whether or not taxes are what we should focus on here.
You misinterpreted what I said about the poor and disabled. I think the first half was pretty fair and reasonable, in fact we're talking about it right now and I appreciate it. What I meant by "although some people have been able to live their lives happy regardless of either" was somewhat of the whole survivor mentality bias I admittedly have, that some people despite being poor/disabled are still able to live happy lives and be alright. I wouldn't be as heartless as to imply that I'm not one of them so it doesn't matter. It does suck, and I can at least empathize or try to, which is why I'm having this discussion with you and trying to see what can be done. While some some can pull through, others can't, and not even help from their community can suffice due to some of the outrageous bills. Hence why I'm starting to lean towards you guys a bit more.
The survivor mentality thing is debatable, and again I am bias. I would say perhaps it doesn't need to disappear completely, but perhaps we could have measured to make those who aren't surviving have an easier time, however way we can. I can agree that those poor and disabled should be able to have reasonable access to healthcare. They should still pay for it though, but I do agree the prices are the issue currently.
The US spends 12.4% of its annual GDP on public Healthcare alone. In my country, Spain, where we have universal Healthcare, it's only 8.4%. In total the US spends more than 20% it's GDP on Healthcare alone. It's almost twice what the other countries do. It's a gargantuan scam.
don't support health care for poor people, great idea. i look forward to the return of plagues and pandemics.
Ok. So my point stands then. The issue in the USA is not a funding issue, additional revenue is not a requirement to provide adequate health Care to the entire population of the USA.
Writing from my ass here but I would imagine tort, administrative, and pharma reform are all a part of the solution.
In economics a general point of agreement for increased governmental expenditure tends to be civil law vs. common law.
P.s. we Democrats screamed bloody murder ~20 years ago when the Republicans pushed for malpractice reform.
Sorry for getting so contentious. I've just been reading too much today and was encountering a lot of viewpoints that seemed very... lacking in empathy. So I assumed the worst about you, and that was not fair of me at all.
Well, since you shared your origins and coming from Cuba, I'll mention that I spent most of my childhood in Canada and while I didn't think much of politics then since I was so young, I look back and realize how much I took the social services there for granted. So when I came to the US as a teenager, even then the viewpoints I ran into about healthcare and other social services seemed so viscerally wrong to me. Fast forward decades later, and I've spent years and years and years hearing people regurgitate the same easily debunked BS about why we can't have affordable and accessible healthcare for all, and it drives me crazy. As someone who has experienced living somewhere where that kind of thing is available, it angers me to no end to keep encountering a mentality that just outright dismisses it using false arguments. Not that I'm saying that's what you were doing. Again, I assumed the worst about you and I apologize for that.
I focus on how unexpected illness can bankrupt people in the US. I mean, yeah, sure, I appreciate low sales taxes when I'm buying groceries and clothes at Nordstrom Rack or whatever. On the other hand, I have a feeling that a lifetime of savings from retail purchases could be easily wiped out by one really bad health crisis. So at the end of the day, cheap goods in that sense don't really matter in my opinion. If sales taxes went up, I could adjust my spending accordingly. You don't have the freedom to make adjustments like that with an illness. A good diet and exercise are crucial, but they aren't everything. And, well, genetic disorders exist.
The way I see it: taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. The tax rate for wealthier Americans and corporations used to be much higher. As I understand it, over the past 30 years there's been a consistent effort to gradually chip away at that tax base and push costs onto middle and working class individuals. It makes no sense to me. The wealthy are where they are because of the systems of stability built up by this country. And as an individual, if my government is telling me that in most things in life I'm on my own, then why in the world am I even part of this society? It makes no sense.
Government can be inefficient, but here's the thing: as people we ostensibly have the power to change that. I can't change the assholes running health insurance companies that deny people coverage. So I'll take my chances with the government over private corporations.
I think the survivor mentality in the US has been used to convince people to be okay with taxing the wealthy less. When that happens, all of society suffers. The wealthy might feel it less, but the systems of stability on which they rely (but won't admit it) also start to crumble. Of course, this takes awhile to happen and they can ignore it until things get really bad.
Maybe it's because I was raised in Canada, but I just don't buy into a lot of the cultural explanations Americans have for not wanting to contribute to the welfare of their fellow citizens. I'm not even that altruistic about it. I know that if those systems are there to help others, they'll also be there for me some day.
Specifically with regards to Medicare access, this is clearly an Equal Protection Act issue as the way Kentucky's law is written CLEARLY deprives disabled people of a publically accessable service.
Doesn't mean they won't try and try again.
OP
OP
The title is more in context toward the recent court cases. It's not a broad title actually.
US judges are making verdicts on this right now. The case in the OP went for those who could not work to meet the Medicaid requirement.
Medicaid is a US social program that provides free healthcare for those eligible, usually low income earners. It's false to say the US doesn't have free healthcare. It's just limited to the poor (Medicaid, the program under attack right now) and Medicare (for seniors). Medicare is never touched since seniors are a formidable voting bloc.
Many GOP governors are looking to pass laws that add work requirements to become eligible to receive these funds.
It's alright. I accept your apologies.
Given your origin story, I can see how coming to the United States created a sort of dissonance since it didn't have what you were so used to. I suppose the main issue would be how exactly to implement such a system in the United States. The main issue, as I stated, is the cost. Things are overpriced because of corporations like insurance companies. Like I mentioned before I think a $1 IV bag costs like $157 (without health insurance I think) in some hospitals and that's just ridiculous. If things just cost a little more than they are worth to make a profit, I think almost everyone would be able to afford healthcare. It may not be like other countries exactly where the government hands it out to everyone, but I think it's a good middle ground that is basically the same thing and retains the individualism and ideals of America.
I can pretty much agree with the merit of your tax argument once again. Presently I can't really refute it, especially given the cost of healthcare without health insurance. That reminds me, how exactly is health insurance in Canada? I think here someone said it was $2,000. I wonder if maybe there was a way to lower that? Even then I would imagine insurance companies consider poor people liabilities..
I do have a few comments though to perhaps offer a different perspective. I will state though that I think to my knowledge, the wealthy individuals (I'm not sure if it was before or after the tax decrease for them) in the United States have to pay like around 30-50% in taxes. I would say that's a fair bit, but again I plead some ignorance on the finer details.
Furthermore, I think part of the reason it makes no sense for you to be a part of a society if your game vernment is telling you that you'll be on your own is due to your upbringing. I'm not saying any one particular method is superior, but from what I know those who live in Canada rely on government quite a bit more than Americans do. Although to be fair, it seems to be working for you guys. I think the most prominent reason America has stayed the way it has been is due to ideology, for better or for worse. They came from a tyrannical government, and the surrounding culture and their new government basically did their best to stay away from that (and subsequently government power/influence) as best they can. Admittedly, in recent years the government has been gaining more power but I think compared to other countries it is less (although correct me if I'm wrong). At the very least, I'm inclined to think the individuals are much less in favor of anything government. It's not just about government or freedom either, but also individualism versus collectivism. A lot of other countries, like Japan and such, all value the collective more than any individual human life which arguably devalues the life of individuals. America is the opposite, heavily putting emphasis on the individual and basically putting them responsible for what happens to them either directly or indirectly (you might not choose to be poor or disabled but how you respond and deal with your decision is your choice, I think would be the common argument). Granted I know that may not apply to some illness where people lack autonomy and such but I'm speaking in general. I mention this since on some level your argument(s) do seem to come from a somewhat collectivist viewpoint when it comes to benefiting the collective at the expense of individuals (which would be through taxes I suppose). However I need to be fair and say that one could argue that benefiting the collective IS benefiting the individual and that is worthy of discussion, plus you did also propose an argument that I've heard before and is pretty reasonable (which is basically that being altruistic an selfless in some cases actually rewards you too as an individual). There's definitely a lot of layers to unpack, though I do think your upbringing does have some slight bias (although that's not inherently a bad thing, I admitted my bias though I apologize for assuming that you have that specific one, nevertheless let it be clear that I still see your arguments as reasonable and I believe they definitely have their merits).
Your government versus corporations point I can understand. And while you can technically influence the government, the results could still be considered negligible since some people don't think their votes matter and you can't control what the politicians you elected will do after being elected (not to mention their vulnerability to lobbyists). In the end I don't see it much different than a corporation itself. If anything I'm more inclined to think that corporations, at least most of them, are more inclined to do what is best for the people since they need to cater to them in order to stay in business. I will admit that monopolies are a thing but generally I feel that the free market and general populous would be able to handle themselves if anything malicious happens or if they feel wronged (I mean, they likely have a better chance at that than trying to sue the government imo).
Interesting point about survivor mentality and taxing them less. Again, to my knowledge they're still taxed quite substantially, and if anything I think them being taxed less only for the middle class to be taxed more might have been due to an absurd amount of tax they might've been facing previously. As always, I'll admit when I'm ignorant and this is one of those cases where I can't say I'm completely confident. What are the systems of stability on which the wealthy rely on? Forgive me for not being able to keep up with that specifically.
As for your last point, I kind of dived into it a bit earlier with the history of the country and the individualism and all of that. I don't know, I guess it's just a different set of cultures. Now, if you don't buy it or agree with it that's fine, it is hard to truly understand why people do what they do. The altruism argument is a pretty good one although I also addressed it a bit earlier. Life is weird man, I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who evidently don't understand Canada's system of government or the system of government of other countries. But yeah, I generally agree that something should be done about American healthcare currently. For me, I think something should be done about the cost. I appreciate the conversation we have been having, and even though we can talk and discuss things and disagree, I'm glad everything has remained respectful and courteous. This is what I was talking about a bit earlier, what I think American needs more of. Some sort of common ground, some things that people can just agree on and use as a foundation to I suppose uphold a good balance of both individualism and collectivism. Otherwise, with no established set of values that are agreed upon, people will just remain divided on absolutely everything. That's why in an argument/debate/discussion one of the most important things is to find common ground early and to state what parts of what the other person is saying you agree with. I'm glad we've been able to agree on some things and find common ground despite our disagreements, allowing for a fruitful discussion. I'm curious as to what else you might have to say.
The fact that this is even a question is the problem itself. But we sure need billions more spent on tanks and fighters we'll never use.
The issue in the US isn't whether someone has the right to healthcare. All states have a requirement that if someone needs medical care they can go to the ER and have to receive it. IE get into a car accident, you're unconscious, need immediate surgery, you will get it. The issue is afterwards.
The problem is AFFORDABLE healthcare for all. Not healthcare for all.
The problem is AFFORDABLE healthcare for all. Not healthcare for all.
you guys would have been better off still under British rule, seriously
this whole Independence thing is really not working out "for the people", you just replaced the King with a bunch of Super Rich Tycoons who control congress.
this whole Independence thing is really not working out "for the people", you just replaced the King with a bunch of Super Rich Tycoons who control congress.
The US has a well-known broken healthcare system. Unavailable for everyone for a fair price.
I'll pull up some statistics if I can find them, but ina recent study, the annual cost for a single patient was 6800, when compared to e.g. Finland's 2800.
You can fix it but you pull up a lot of excuses. One of worst of the is the "US is so big and diverse" excuse. Stop with that. Somehow you manage with everything else with that same "diverse" demograpic population? Comparatively more diverse countries exist and you convenieltly ignore them, focusing on the center of the universe attitude again. And soon find another excuse in the form of "but what about the costs!?" and when presented with bad spending habits data, you find something else related to bootstraps Bill.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...re-system-is-worst-among-11-developed-nations
Check this Lancet link for a huge amount of graphs and proper data.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)30697-4/fulltext
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...st-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
Sorry for the rant but it's getting old hearing the same shit and looking at a country bludgeoning itself to death, while yelling "I can't help it, it's impossible to stop!" Listen. Just listen for gods sake.
Edit: and there are a lot of smart and progressive people in this thread, but damn do the opponents piss me off.
I'll pull up some statistics if I can find them, but ina recent study, the annual cost for a single patient was 6800, when compared to e.g. Finland's 2800.
You can fix it but you pull up a lot of excuses. One of worst of the is the "US is so big and diverse" excuse. Stop with that. Somehow you manage with everything else with that same "diverse" demograpic population? Comparatively more diverse countries exist and you convenieltly ignore them, focusing on the center of the universe attitude again. And soon find another excuse in the form of "but what about the costs!?" and when presented with bad spending habits data, you find something else related to bootstraps Bill.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...re-system-is-worst-among-11-developed-nations
Check this Lancet link for a huge amount of graphs and proper data.
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)30697-4/fulltext
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...st-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
Sorry for the rant but it's getting old hearing the same shit and looking at a country bludgeoning itself to death, while yelling "I can't help it, it's impossible to stop!" Listen. Just listen for gods sake.
Edit: and there are a lot of smart and progressive people in this thread, but damn do the opponents piss me off.
In my opinion there's no other workable model than having the government provide care for everybody who requests it.
Tying it to employment in the American model is a nightmare that can never work. It will only get worse over time as automation kicks in, and employment becomes rarer, more casual and fragmented, and devoid of even the modest benefits it provides today.
Tying it to employment in the American model is a nightmare that can never work. It will only get worse over time as automation kicks in, and employment becomes rarer, more casual and fragmented, and devoid of even the modest benefits it provides today.
Even from a capitalist approach it´s better to have universal healthcare. A sick person is a worse worker, if the person can even work, a dead person is a bad consumer. I´ll never understand the sentiment in the USA when it comes to healthcare. It´s not only a lack of empathy it´s also stupid, if everyone fights pretty much on its own when it comes to healthcare costs for treatments he needs vs much bigger entities than him, it´s clear who will take advantage of whom. It just doesn´t make sense other than that a big populace wants the rest to die and that is no society in the end, it´s civil war.
I hate this question so i propose this one:
Do rich people have the right to health care?
Thats a tougher one.
Hmmm
Jesus told me
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
But he saved Lazarus, so i Guess there's some Nice rich people.
So some rich people deserve health care Its my answer.
Im joking, but yeah universal public healthcare
Do rich people have the right to health care?
Thats a tougher one.
Hmmm
Jesus told me
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
But he saved Lazarus, so i Guess there's some Nice rich people.
So some rich people deserve health care Its my answer.
Im joking, but yeah universal public healthcare
This country putting requirements on things is one of the dumbest things to do in modern history.
It shows literally zero fucking optics to current issues of precarity today, and the looming future where jobs as survival value can, in fact, cause societies to literally implode on themselves. These ideas are already violent, but one look into the horizon and you become acutely aware they risk becoming terminal.
Conditionality for all social programs should be looser, not stricter. Unconditionality for baseline needs is the inevitable target we should be aiming for, if we bother to pay attention. But the GOP, the normalized party of violence that they are, is also the anti-reality party: facts fall to the wayside for ideals, and are typically exposed to be dogshit when examined for even a gew moments.
I can only wish that people see the future of this country is found within the band of views and opinions of the political left. The political right is nothing but a metastasized mess, bathed in empty platitudes of nobility and worthiness when their policies are anything but. The party that claims to be pro-life doesn't mind destroying the earth which gives life to all, and that's not even consider the micro-scale gutter trash they do with punishing people for the unfortunate act of having a family.
It shows literally zero fucking optics to current issues of precarity today, and the looming future where jobs as survival value can, in fact, cause societies to literally implode on themselves. These ideas are already violent, but one look into the horizon and you become acutely aware they risk becoming terminal.
Conditionality for all social programs should be looser, not stricter. Unconditionality for baseline needs is the inevitable target we should be aiming for, if we bother to pay attention. But the GOP, the normalized party of violence that they are, is also the anti-reality party: facts fall to the wayside for ideals, and are typically exposed to be dogshit when examined for even a gew moments.
I can only wish that people see the future of this country is found within the band of views and opinions of the political left. The political right is nothing but a metastasized mess, bathed in empty platitudes of nobility and worthiness when their policies are anything but. The party that claims to be pro-life doesn't mind destroying the earth which gives life to all, and that's not even consider the micro-scale gutter trash they do with punishing people for the unfortunate act of having a family.
We came so far by letting natural selection evolve the species.
Over the last 200 years we have taken matters in our own hands and we decide our future and how mankind is evolving, yet we cannot understand simple ideas as "everyone deserves to be happy and healthy".
Sometimes i just sit and think about the stupidity of our species...
Over the last 200 years we have taken matters in our own hands and we decide our future and how mankind is evolving, yet we cannot understand simple ideas as "everyone deserves to be happy and healthy".
Sometimes i just sit and think about the stupidity of our species...