Is it the responsibility of the federal government to make sure that all Americans have health care coverage?

[msc545]

If not the government's responsibility, then whose is it?

[WhiteSteve]

Absolutely. Nothing having to do with human well-being should be privatized and operate as a for-profit business.

You can’t have life —and I mean LIFE ITSELF— be based upon some kind of weird exclusionary meritocracy where your life quality is contingent on how economically “useful” you are to the society you exist in. The point of being alive isn’t to serve some country‘s GDP goals, and it’s not to be a “productive worker.” Work and jobs and all that are just manifestations of the human imagination, they have no natural validity. Our “job” is natural, wild survival. Just because we’ve constructed a false reality to serve ourselves doesn’t mean any of that natural stuff is out the window or that modern humans are correct with our intents/results of “society as we know it.” It’s all happening, but we can’t lose sight of how things are meant to be naturally in favor of something that we’ve created.

So I just mean we can’t fall back on “welp, society has swimmers and sinkers”…that works in the wild. But I question the decency and motives of any allegedly advanced society that’s comfortable with creating a situation where we COULD make sure everyone is at least very basically alright, but we just choose not to, “because money”, and never let empathy get in the way of that.

[msc545]

Steve, I think what you are describing is a natural consequence of a capitalist economic system such as we have in the US. Do you agree or not?

[msc545]

This is absolutely a brilliant answer and if I had the ability to do it, I give it an award on this site.

[WhiteBoyChill]

To be fair tho so long as the system’s private, isn’t some form of profit necessary for R&D and paying salaries to healthcare workers?

Problem I have is just the chronic greed and grossly overcharging on stuff

[WhiteSteve]

I appreciate that, man, thanks.

And I definitely agree. I think the common misconception is that people are trying to rid ourselves of Capitalism altogether, and quickly brand anything empathetic that’s done for the collective good (it’s also just socially practical) as some anti-Capitalist endeavor. I don’t think that’s the case.

I just think we over-privatized in the Reagan era, and we’re feeling the effects to this day. You can be as rich as you can make yourself, I don’t necessarily care, just don’t rig the system to insurmountably favor those who are already there.

It’s not that everyone has to have the same house with the same view and the same car in the driveway, it’s just about not letting the guy with the nice house and nice view and nice car fuck the rest of us over so he doesn’t and systematically CAN’T lose pole position.

A lot of this is rich people not wanting others to have a shot at their spot. I’m trying to remember what it was I’ve seen, but I’ve seen some things about super wealthy people, and they’re just totally insulated from the rest of us normal people, and they LIKE THAT. The old money folks, that’s all they know. I see golfers online talking about “shrink the game”, meaning they resent the influx of normal peasants playing THEIR game at THEIR clubs. That’s probably not the ultra wealthy, they’re at exclusive clubs, but the “regular rich”-tier people seem annoyed that ham-and-eggers are playing their game.

[WhiteSteve]

And that’s kind of just an allegory of their greater attitude: “we’re wealthy and elite; we’re better than other people because of our family’s success/money; we shouldn’t have to interact with them and we should have access to things they don’t. That’s my reward for being so successful, and their cross to bear for being losers.”

So I think they basically like to feel like they’re getting extra benefits that others don’t. When it comes to health care…. thats REALLY fucking weird. It’s not even that they’re necessarily rooting against others, but it bothers them that someone less worthy, in their estimation, has access to anything they do. Like to them, it’s not “premium” if others can have it too.

But yeah, overall, Capitalism is fine in a vacuum, but I think it needs to have strong guardrails so it doesn’t get exploited. And like I said, even in a Capitalist society, I think basic human needs should be met, especially in one of, if not THE most, successful economies on the planet.

[WhiteSteve]

@WhiteBoyChill yeah, I mean, that’s all fair and I think is still achievable, but it gets fouled up by just what you’re talking about, greed and price gouging. Especially in a country like ours that encourages eating a Big Mac and drinking a 44 oz Mountain Dew as a normal dietary choice, lmao, where the profits come from treatment, not prevention of illness. The American diet is EMBARRASSING compared to the rest of the world. But they want us overweight and with blood pressure and cholesterol problems so they can sell us Eliquis and Lipitor so we don’t die for another 20 years once it catches up to us. And they have us working 60 hours a week to make ends meet, no time to work out, no time to cook for yourself, yet still somehow all the time in the world to watch Netflix or the NFL or play Fortnight, lmao. And the results are what we see today. You stay fat or they start pumping Ozempic into you, because fuck salad and treadmills, lmao. Everyone suspicious as fuck of the Covid vaccine, but some shady “will power” medicine to keep you from eating an entire bag of Doritos is A-OK, no further questions🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

There’s a whole convoluted route to get here, but when you step back for a second and see it, you’re like “holy shit.”

[OlderAndWiser]

Conservatives believe that the government should interfere with our liberties in a very minimal way, and we should be left alone and given the authority to take care of ourselves. Liberals want the government to provide a safety net for every citizen. This is not a conflict in which one side is right and the other side is wrong. It is simple a disagreement about the proper function of a government and whether we should be responsible for ourselves.

The fact that the government COULD possibly do this doesn't mean the government SHOULD do it. When we talk aboujt the government, it is not a rich uncle; it is simply a form of governance we have chosen. Every act by the government which requires money means that money must be taken from some citizen to provide benefits for other citizens. Do you have an obligation to help me with my house payment or my insurance? That's the real question when you strip away the facade of should the "government" provide such assistance.

[DrPepper12]

Louder for the morons in the box seats...

[NimbleOcelot]

Republicans states literally started to track people down for breaking their laws while in other states, as well as banning books and whatnot. There's a point when you have to recognize one way is better than the other, even if it seems unappealing at first. Republicans don't want safety nets, but then get mad when they don't have safety nets in place, like when they get cancer and lose their jobs, so now they can't afford food, let alone cancer treatments. The safety nets are a requirement for a functional society. If you want to see a society without them, look up the East India Trading Company.

[RainbowMarinade]

Guess that depends on what you want from your country.
A healthy, well educated populace is far more beneficial to the entire country than leaving the sick and injured to their own accord.
However, we live in a “I gotta get mine, fuck the rest. Die of cancer….” kind of America, so they’ll never understand the concept of the “greater good.” 🤷‍♀️

[Anonymous]

No but they can cut out the middle man like we do in the Uk and make healthcare affordable. It's up to taxpayers.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Doesn’t the UK’s healthcare system still suck tho and have its own problems? I hardly think the Uk is the best example of who to emulate

[Opinion Owner]

@WhiteBoyChill yes. The NHS is purposefully being run into the ground. There's huge waiting lists, you can go private to skip the list and basically see the same doctor at a private facility.
Still a lot cheaper and you won't be told now by national insurance refusing to pay for a necessary treatment all because you have a "preexisting" condition such a yeast infection

[WhiteBoyChill]

Oh ok. So you’re saying the public system sucks but the private system is still relatively affordable tho?

[Opinion Owner]

@WhiteBoyChill the public system as I say has been deliberately run into the ground. The private system still works out cheaper than in America. But the basis is that say you break your arm and have to go to casualty/ER without insurance it cost $16,000 in the UK it costs $1500 and the NI & the NHS cover it, you don't even have to fill out paperwork for that.

[abc3643]

It should be.

This is the Preamble of the United States Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

One of the objectives of the Preamble is to broadly assert the responsibilities of the Federal Government - in essence, state why it was created.

Notice this one:

provide for the common defence

This is why the Federal Government is responsible for the military, diplomacy, and immigration and naturalization.

The biggie for this is the military. The Federal Government of the United States is in charge of the defense of the United States, period.

But, defense from what?

Foreign powers / invasions? certainly.

Godzilla? yeah, I think Godzilla would count.

Extraterrestrials? maybe diplomacy before military might be better there.

But all of those are macroscopic (potential) enemies... enemies that are tangible and can be seen.

Since the founding of the republic though, we've learned about all sorts of new enemies... the microscopic ones... bacteria, viruses, even the cells in our own bodies.

Yet, we need defending from these things too!

The military deals with the macroscopic enemies, but medicine and health care deal with the microscopic ones. Well, an enemy is an enemy, period. If the Federal Government can pay to keep the military operating to "provide for the common defence" against macroscopic enemies, then the Federal Goverment can pay to keep the health care system operating to "provide for the common defence" against microscopic enemies.

[Anonymous]

No! The Federal goverment is suppose to be for FEDERAL objects of a forign nature.

That's why it only has an 11 page constitution of "few and defined" powers of a forign nature. A system of checks and balances intended to help enforce it.

If you ignore the limits and pack the system filled with responsibility then none of them will matter anymore than a particular tree matters to a forest.

Like it or not the forest is all we as voters can see and use our 1 vote to address from 1000 miles away as we are from any particular domestic issue in a continental spanning jurisdiction.

The issues of that goverment must be limited to issues which consistently effect all Americans in a relatively uniform way. Even then they should be issues on which there is a fallback in case we can't agree. State n atonal guards as back up military for example.

Otherwise your just asking for corruption and abuse if you put that power in the federal goverment.

[NimbleOcelot]

Giving free healthcare allows for abuse of power?

[msc545]

@NimbleOcelot wealthy people in the US will scream "communism" or "socialism" any time reforms are contemplated. This is just more of that tripe.

[Opinion Owner]

@nimbleocelot What do you call it when I decide a medical procedure that is most commonly needed by people living in you area of the country or particular ethic background wasn't worth the money?

That is the kind of choices health insurance be it goverment or private is forced to make every day. When a private insurance plan drops coverage you can go to anther one. When your state does it you can move to anther state! Althou its unlikely to do so if that procedure effects it's area of the country.

But when the Federal goverment does it there is nothing you can do. Worse still nobody is going to care out side of your minority area of the country or minority ethic group if they know at all come election.

Elections which are already ignoring 99% of the issues the same goverment has already taken control of.

No it doesn't work, and @msc545
If I were really wealthy I would be able to buy off the federal bureaucrat or few politicians making that policy and for the same reason nobody ever cast their vote on that issue I would get away with it!

Think about it and use your head. Giving power to a man you already can't control is only giving it away to be sold to the highest bidder at best.

[NimbleOcelot]

Literally every other 1st world country has this. The doctors decide what is required, because they are doctors. Meanwhile, we have private healthcare which is probably corrupt, and they remove doctors from their network just so people can't use them. Our healthcare is already sold to the highest bidder, so your argument is already invalidated.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot
With respect nearly every one of those countries are tiny homogeneous countries. Not vast diverse continental federations like these united States.

As I was saying that makes a huge difference! You don't have a lot of very different minority regions and populations, with equally different needs. Needs against which we can and already DO discriminate in existing 'federal' domestic programs.
Programs originally designed to do PRECISELY what your arguing they would, and fell apart as financially ruinous because everyone gamed it to death!

The other problem is our system of Government was designed with "check & balances" if we had a working constitution of limited power an an automatic expiration clause for every act of congress forcing it to go thou a review of the same process.
This would work very well to ensure that such policies disparately effecting minorities would get overturned or the legal scheme would collapse.

But we don't have that anymore. Our Constitutional system collapsed and today after 200 years we have accumulated such a large body of laws an executive elected for any other reason on earth including simply "the economy" can effectively govern everything else in anyway they want.

None of those laws can be repealed or changed by congress because the minority which agrees with him on that can protect any standing law previously passed. Due to the lack of need to maintain the consent of the governed.

This is why Thomas Jefferson was right in saying we need a "revolution" every generation to clean up such acts. But given we already have such a limit in "discretionary spending" we also know we need very few powers for said goverment or in practice nobody can review and reject anything in the omnibus bills they cram it all together in just to get it thou.

[NimbleOcelot]

Are you really arguing that all of Europe and Canada are tiny, homogeneous cou tries? Also, how does being homogeneous even matter to healthcare? It doesn't change what can be handled. Your argument is pure speculation based off of nothing, except that you don't want to be wrong. There is no basis in reality, and checks and balances don't matter to healthcare, where the politicians aren't the ones deciding who needs healthcare. It'd be the doctors themselves, and it can't be any more flawed than what we have currently, which is well known for being shitty healthcare by literally every other first world country.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Europe consist of tiny mostly homogeneous countries. Canada at least until very recently was a highly homogeneous country. A 'country' i should add in which only a minority like their provinces provided insurance plan in contrast to 71 % of Americans that like their employer provided one.

[NimbleOcelot]

Most Americans hate their insurance, and they hate even more what they pay out of pocket for it. Also, wtf does being homogeneous have fuckall to do with anything? I also wouldn't consider England homogeneous, at least not in the cities. I don't know about the country sides.

[NimbleOcelot]

Also, if Americans like their insurance so much, why was their widespread support for Luigi after he killed that CEO?

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot
That is no what even New York Times polls say:
www.nytimes.com/.../health-insurance-polls.html

Homogeneous is about having the same general medical issues for geographic, cultural, and biological reasons. Thus making it far more difficult to target minorities. It also makes it far easier to agree on any policy at all not invariably creating disparate impacts.

So yes Homogeneity matters a lot in sharing almost anything, particularity something that is important.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot The left had wide spread murderous support, not Americans do not confuse them.

[NimbleOcelot]

What? If they have cancer, treat them for cancer. If they have Aids, treat them for Aids. It doesn't matter what race they are. And who did NYT interview about their love for their healthcare? Because I don't know anyone who has been. We have actually the worst healthcare among all other high income countries, so having a poll where Americans like their healthcare is a load of shit. www.ajmc.com/.../us-health-care-system-ranks-last-overall-among-other-high-income-countries

[NimbleOcelot]

Then why was it democratic poll stations that received bomb threats? Why was it Maga standing outside polling stations with guns? What murderers are you talking about?

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Are you seroulsy comparing a poll of how people feel about THEIR insurance company to how a bunch of leftist choose to rank various countries overall health care industries?

predictably chery picking fields of value as if they should matter to everyone?

The U. S. health care industry is far from perfect being the most heavily regulated industry in existence it is basically an extension of an incompetent goverment at this point for what little freedom we have to choose.

A goverment which has all but removed price selection from the system and therefore garrenteed the price to go up as fast as it can for 60+ years now.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Leftist more and more regard republicans as a forign enemy as democrats have taught them to get them to vote in lockstep. So it makes no sense as an indiviual to attack the enemy you "need to unite with all other democrats to take on". It only makes sense to go after your own when they betray you.

[NimbleOcelot]

Am I comparing an opinion piece from corporate media about how people (which people) like their insurance against literal statistics about the coats and medical care others receive in other countries? Yes, yes I am, because that's what you should do. I haven't met a single person who was happy about their healthcare, aside from people who have medicaid, which is Obamacare by the way, and is what people want for everyone. But assuming there are actually people out there that think they have good healthcare, they just haven't experienced actual good healthcare.

[NimbleOcelot]

In regards to the part you added as I was posting, it's Trump talking about the "enemy within" talking about leftists. Meanwhile, the left is saying that we shouldn't be enemies.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Really? I haven't met anyone who is happy with medicare.

I guess we know very diff rent people, its ashamed some people insist upon us sharing a goverment.

People who don't like their insurance plan should be free to get anther one or go out of pocket, if the repressive goverment didn't FORCE or subsidies the big bushiness that pay their bills.

[NimbleOcelot]

Who do you know that isn't happy with it? Because my parents use it and love it, because they can actually go to the doctor.

Also, you are saying they are free to get other health insurance, but it's usually tied to their job, so they can't. And they will often deny the people who actually need it. Just look up the situation with Luigi.

[msc545]

What is it that you think people dislike about medicare? My patients really like it, as do I.

[NimbleOcelot]

Fox News probably told them people don't like it.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot My family, its bureaucratic, and shifts costs of the wealthiest demographic (the retired) upon the poorest.

Health insurance is tied to a job because of Federal Tax credits and deductions that need to either be generalized or abolished.

[NimbleOcelot]

It doesn't take money away from the retired. In fact, normal healthcare takes more money from the retired, whereas standardized healthcare wouldn't take anything away from the retired, since they have no income.

What it does is shifts the burden from the rich, who have more than enough money, to the poor, who are often poor because they can't afford healthcare and other necessities. You only hate free healthcare because corporate owned media tells you to, or because you are rich and a hoarder of wealth.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot The retired represent the wealth est segment of the American population, having spent a life time of earning money.

Medicare, medicade, social security bankroll this segment of the population at the experience of every-other generally less successful segment with the very important consequence of also helping to keep them away from helping raise grand kids and cover the cost of shared housing for the children.

There is a reason our culture started to unravel within generations of when theses programs were created. We lost the stabilizing and experienced influence of our grandparents. Even during good economic times this was devastating to the children who never learned from them as they should.

Those children of course without that cultural information went on to do even worse for their own kids and themselfs, ultimately losing the family all together in the following generation.

Theses programs don't just impoverish Americans financially they have all but destroyed us as sustainable culture.

[NimbleOcelot]

How are the retired affected when they don't pay taxes? The answer is that they are not, and you don't understand how these things work. Also, these programs aren't what turned the US to shit. Allowing corporations to use the government to subsidize pay, hoard the wealth and housing, and to raise food prices at their whim is what caused the situation we are in. It's not the $2 extra the working class has to pay in taxes each month.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot I don't think you are following even thou i said it twice. It is the retired who are being subsided by everyone else even thou they have the most money & assets after a life time of earning of anyone.

It is you who don't understand economics, EVERYONE is going to take as much as they can get whether you call them an indiviual, a cooperation, a politician, or a goverment as a whole. That is human nature and it is only ever checked by the accountability of competition.

There is no "hording" of houses when you can devalue them with new houses. (goverment blocked that with limited permits, land use, building regulations, etc...)

There is no raising any price when others can sell for less. (goverment shut down and squeezed out others via excessive and ever more complex regulations, which just happen to be for sell in practice to the highest bidder despite that not being legal).

Government is the only monopoly with the power to create theses problems and they have indeed acted to do so in the ways Illustrated.

[NimbleOcelot]

Not all the retired are wealthy. My parents sure AF aren't. Also, if healthcare was free for everyone, everyone would get the same healthcare, and not just the rich. Even aside from all this, we still have certified proof that free healthcare works, and is cheaper and better than whatever tf we have.

"EVERYONE is going to take as much as they can get whether you call them an indiviual" To an extent, yes. The ones who don't hoard wealth don't become rich or billionaires. So policies should be put in place to prevent this hoarding of wealth, which the government is required for.

Just pointing out that the left actually builds housing for the lower class, which is what you said should happen. Also, you can't build housing where there is already housing.

Yes, they can't raise prices when they can open up their own shops. However, like you said, the government doesn't really allow this, and it's mostly (not fully) the right that does this. However, you are trying to argue that the government shouldn't be involved at all? Look up the East India Trading Company, and see what happens to unregulated wealth.

Ideally, we wouldn't need the government to get involved, but due to how things work, we do. People will always buy what they can get for less in the moment, and the rich are well known for undercutting their prices to weed out competition, then raising it to extremes when there is no competition. Without government intervention (or a revolution), the rich will continue to force the economy to work for them.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot
If anything was "Free" everyone would get the same, which in practice is nothing in the long run.

Because nothing is free, everything requires effort, and resources to provide. Effort to invent, innovate, make, and deliver. And of course nobody really know or ever could know what effort is the right effort so we have to try things and see what the people with local knowledge actually use.

No indiviual much less a goverment consistently run by people with the qualifications of conmen (politicians) is capable of managing such a system long term. All they can do is copy the system others have implemented at best.

Without private sector healthcare all the Government healthcare systems in the world would stagnate and die without someone to steal the work from.

[NimbleOcelot]

Literally every other first world country has implemented it successfully, and with better results than the US sees. This is something that can easily be done. Also, there'd still be private sector healthcare, and healthcare companies would do just fine without health insurance being privatized. People would still have the right to choose which medicine they'd rather take.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot again your opinion by your cherry picked standards in comparison to a U. S. Government hijacked system designed to fail by removing price selection.

Any industry would fail similarly if you did to it what the U. S. Government has done to the U. S. healthcare

[NimbleOcelot]

You mean letting them get away with very few controls and forcing people to use privatized insurance that doesn't even have to cover the costs? Yea, maybe we should fix that.

And how is comparing the US to EVERY other 1st world country "cherrypicked?" Please learn words before you use them.

[Opinion Owner]

@nimbleocelot The only Time we were FORCED to gamble with any insurance was under Obamacare.

There is basically no industry in America more heavily micromanaged than healthcare, and it shows with how few options and expensive they are. They were latterly are given local monopolies in much of America for most of the last 60+ years. Including today thanks to COBRA.

It is that monopoly status that forces people to use the providers, and the regulations that forces people to use a very narrow selection of largely predetermined 'plans' most of which remove the user from any interest in price selection thus driving the price up as fast as possible.

You want a functional healthcare market the Government needs to outlaw all but catastrophic plans.

I didn't say you cherry picked your comparison I said you cherry picked your standards of comparison on which you grade both countries. Which is not only much worse its a lot more obvious your being subjective and ignoring lots of not helpful information.

[NimbleOcelot]

That's a load of crock. Obamacare's main issues on the ones republicans forced in order to say it was bad, largely how you had to pay for not having healthcare. Medicare doesn't retroactively decide you don't have insurance. They don't require deductibles that make it useless for all but the largest procedures, which are often denied, due to "preexisting conditions" or because the insurance company doesn't "believe" it's the right procedure. I quoted believe, since they aren't doctors, and they only believe what will save them money. Medicare does none of that.

No other country has these issues. No other country has the highest prices for subpar coverage. I shouldn't have to go bankrupt if I get cancer, or have a baby.

Tell me in what way I cherry picked my comparisons? Because in almost every metric, other countries are ahead of what we do with public healthcare. You complain about a waiting list, but there's a waiting list in the US. In omcountries with public healthcare, there are still private providers that they can go to, in order to bypass the wait times, and it's cheaper than in the US, where you still have to wait and usually have no other options.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot There you go again making a dishonest argument in comparing the "insurance" companies Americans COULD buy with what particular goverment options do buy. You can buy a very crummy plain the the US and you can buy nice plans. 71% of Americans like their plan which is far higher than the number of Canadians that like what their providential goverment offers them.

All while Ignoring the fact that Medicare is a economic basket case, much like the Canadian Provencal goverment plans and the United Kingdom's NHS. That goverment program along with social security are the reason the U. S. goverment can never cut enough spending to balance its budget.

We are and have been paying thou the nose for medicare which has on top of that shifted via billing practice a lot of its load on everyone else.

A high deductible is designed to make you care about the price of most of your medical costs and only step in when it becomes unaffordable. It is still gambling and a bad idea, Most of the medical cost in America are incurred by a minority of patents who blow thou that quickly and don't care thereafter.

A better system would be a dept based with repayment over time using insurance only for really catastrophic coverage that exceeds your disposable income. Even then insurance would not work it would only drive costs up more and more. As long as you mandate coverage.

[NimbleOcelot]

Omfg, I can't believe you are defending forced insurance and calling my argument dishonest. It's dishonest that you are ignoring that Americans die much more often due to our shitty healthcare system, and then try to say it costs too much for the government when it's been proven repeatedly that we'd spend less than we do now. Keep licking the boots of your overlords. I can't believe the party of the "working class" is the one defending the billionaires. Everything we have, every study, every metric, every statistic, proves your wrong, but you'd rather shill for the rich.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot No i am against forcing people to gamble with insurance plans whether they are private or run by the Government. We humans have the natural right to decide for ourselves how we both provide for and finance our own healthcare. Anyone the state takes that right from is at the mercy of the same for their own life and thus is repressed intolerable.

As for your implication about billionaires profiting rather than paying for everyone. If rather than simply buying that leftist lie you actually did the math you would realize there are only around 612 billionaires in these united states with an average wealth of around 4.2 billion. that means there is roughly only 1 billionaire per every 500,000 people. If you took and sold everything they own (which you could not do) and divided it among everyone equally it would equate to only a one time payment of 4.2N/500k = 8k or roughly enough to pay for health insurance for a year or so.

So no they don't have enough money, and they are not the problem. the problem is the institution of insurance and the Tragedy of the commons it creates in the healthcare system.

[NimbleOcelot]

You realize you tax institutions as well? And besides, this doesn't change the fact that the US currently spends more paying for uncontrolled medical pricing, thanks to private insurance companies, than it would if it was the one responsible for paying it. And also pointing out that the top 1% contains 30% of the entirety of the wealth of the US. Again, this isn't including companies that they own. You can call it a leftist lie all you want, but if you are defending the fact that the rich pay less in taxes than us by percent, you fell into the right's propaganda. Regardless of what you say, we have ample evidence from every other successful country where it works.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot The U. S. does most all of the medical research and development for the world because we are one of the only ones not stealing the technology.

Even still Canadians spend a comparable amount in taxes, as i am willing to bet is the same with most other similarly wealthy countries with similar labor and material costs.

Just because you hide and/or redistribute a cost to someone else doesn't mean your not spending that money.

[msc545]

No, actually, the Japanese do much of that research as do the Chinese.

[NimbleOcelot]

That's a load of bs. The US is just the ones who take credit for it, and then monetize it. You just think the US does the most, because the US pharmaceutical companies are the ones selling you the products.

The US does fare highly in innovation, though. But what good is being more innovative if it's citizens can't afford it? If we are among the most innovative, why are so many people dying from not having insulin, or other easily preventable diseases? Why do we have insurance companies and AI telling us what medical procedures to use, despite the doctors saying otherwise? What good is living in the one of the most innovative countries in medical research if you won't see the results for it?

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Now your in crazy land. AI while doing a reasonable job is not able to examine you as it should, it is also rather new.

People all over the world die from preventable disease, particularity in America where they have little reason to be more concerned about their heath than their pleasure and eat too much.

[NimbleOcelot]

I was talking about how they use AI to deny claims.

Also, the fact that you admit Americans are dying from preventable diseases with the "best healthcare system in the world" just proves my point.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot We also have the best aircraft, homes, jobs etc.. in the world. doesn't mean everyone who has the opportunity to buy such would spend the money on the same.

Lots of Canadian's also lack access to your healthcare system for want to distance or sadly wait times.

[NimbleOcelot]

No we don't. Aircrafts? We literally have engineers getting picked off for coming out about how badly one of our aircraft manufacturers are cutting corners, and they think it's worth the risk to their life to do so.

Homes? Most people can't buy homes because the wealthy but them all, raise the prices, and then rent them out for exuberant prices. If you don't have a home already, good luck getting one now, unless you are rich.

Jobs? Currently, we have a decent employment rate, thanks to Biden. But good jobs? No, we do not. By almost every metric, the jobs in Europe are better. More vacation, higher pay per the cost of living, better protections, all of that.

And give me a second to figure out how to post a link to our own government saying why Canadian healthcare is better and why they live longer than Americans, despite living in the same region as us.

0/4, nice try. Except you didn't try, you just repeated what the rightwing talkshow host told you was true.

[NimbleOcelot]

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3633404/

And note, that among all the free healthcare systems, Canada is one of the ones who did it poorly, while you look at most of Europe that did it better, and Canada still is higher ranked than the US, aside from some specific scenarios.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Better than Canada.

That said our problems with housing like there is a direct result of regulations mostly local.

Our problems with jobs just like theirs is a direct result of bad trade deals and immigration driving down wages.

[NimbleOcelot]

That's the kind of choice your doctor should be making, not healthcare. The government won't care 9/10. Also, insurance is almost always tied through your employment, so what happens when you get sick, then get fired while undergoing treatment and lose your healthcare? Because that's what happens now in the US. You can say it COULD be worse under the government, but right now, it's worse under private insurance. You can't just switch either, because again, it's usually tied to your employment. Also, we do have people covered under medicare, and they don't get denied, not to mention the fact that if done right, you'll still have access to private healthcare. The right has been spreading fear about the government healthcare so the rich can keep you locked into their own system, designed to lock you down as much as possible.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot I don't agree with the idea of insurance in general its gambling and opens itself up to shady dealing with an over-reliance on dispute resolution. But the U. S. goverment has subsidized and directed the insurance industry via tax deductions for the employee and even mandated it via regulations.

This is of course the real problem with Healthcare in America since they first started doing that 60 years ago. The cost have gone up as fast as they can while the quality and choice has generally stagnated or declined.

The Federal goverment has tottaly misaligned the intensives to create a more abusive system by having a party that barely knows you pick the plans for everyone. While the plans themselfs give everyone an driving motivation to abuse them.

Nobody is in a position to take any responsibility in such an arrangement and its all because of the congressional abuse of the Federal income tax system.

[NimbleOcelot]

Healthcare shouldn't be reliant on personal responsibility. If I break an arm in the "richest country in the world," I should be able to go to the doctor and get it fixed. If the government gives free healthcare to all, then there is no longer any control from the government, but rather from doctors who do know you, to decide what treatment plans you receive. The most the government would do is audit doctors they think are charging too much to see why they are charging too much. They wouldn't tell you you can't get x procedure because the government (as an entity) cares about advancement more than profits.

[NimbleOcelot]

No more out of network doctors, or in network doctors using out of network labs, and you suddenly finding yourself owing thousands for something insurance should have covered.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot There are few things in existent more directly tied to personal responsibility than healthcare. To try an divorce the 2 creates an enormous conflict of interest.
The solution to which is always some form of externally imposed tyranny.

Be it everyone is denied service or everyone is denied everything else via taxes and in neither case does your choices really matter as much as they should.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot If you write anyone a blank check you will get abuse.
You write such a blank check to hundreds of thousands if not millions of people like your suggesting in just agreeing to pay whatever said 'doctors' want. Your going to be bankrupted in very short order. Even an honest and conservative Doctor if they have even a little imagination can easily spend an infinite amount of time and money 'treating' most patents.

There is always more tests, always something else you can try, always a 'higher quality' option. This is indeed part of the problem with the existing healthcare system.

The weak position of existing health insurance providers has already compromised much of their ability to say no.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot As for the goverment 'auditing' doctors the history of such audit's on any scale is not one that would suggest they are effective particularly against relatively popular industries be it healthcare or the military. Even if the politician chosen 'auditors' were themselfs somehow not pushing an agenda in what they choose to 'find'.

They would in fact be enforcing precisely that code your claiming to want to oppose in letting doctors treat everyone. Indeed that 'agenda' would be redefining that code to reflect what the politician wants to do to the country.

This might even be easily implementable in the elected dictatorships of parliamentary systems, in systems designed to prevent tyranny of the majority it just makes it all that much more difficult to enforce any such code.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Insurance is a terrible idea of gambling. But what is worse is the idea of being liable for whatever someone else decides to do at whatever price they decide to do it.

Some would say you should never accept such a clearly abusive contract. But there are cases the provider would argue that you can't avoid it such as they can't know the extent of the work or check with you when it goes beyond that.

A medical provider say in surgery is in such a position.

But that does not mean such a provider cannot provide a reasonable estimate, or general cost on which he would assume the gain or loss for want of his own accuracy.

The fact that they don't is really an abusive business practice that our goverment facilitates in the enforcement of such contracts.

This isn't limited to medicine either, it is also a common practice among many other distressing where the customer is not in a position to control the service either in ignorance or awareness.

I would agree in all cases the law needs to be changed to place the burden on the only party that can make such a guess the provider. By simply stating a customer cannot be held liable to a charge that was not given prior to said liability.

[NimbleOcelot]

How tf do you think people are going to take advantage of healthcare? Do you think people are just going to start breaking their limbs so that they can get healthcare? Fuck no. You can argue against it all you want, but EVERY developed nation, and even some less developed ones have it, and almost all of them have better healthcare statistics than the US. You are just arguing for what the people who just brought in a full blown oligarchy are telling you to argue for without even fully understanding what you are saying. You have literal stats proving you wrong, but you let the right tell you to fear the left, while telling you to ignore all the billionaires going into office and voting to finalize the oligarchy Trump wants.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Did i not say that a doctor can run an unlimited number of tests and use treatment plans that cost an unlimited amount of money? You can always spend more money on whatever you want and someone will always argue you get something for that extra dollars.

People don't need to get sick more often, although they will do less to take care of themselfs if the cost of getting sick is almost nothing to them, or even advantageous in allowing them to avoid work. Such is the case in Canada where emergency rooms are abused by people seeking an excuse to get out of work.

Indeed the same excuse combined with other welfare systems has a large share of the population on "disability" yes assisted by doctors who fraudulently or erroneously claim they are unable to work.

[Opinion Owner]

@NimbleOcelot Americans are fatter and live less healthy life styles than foreigners largely because our privatized socialized medicsen really does work better than the goverment run options.
Thus making us less concerned about making healthy choices over enduing in fatty entertainment food.

[msc545]

No, we cannot "run an unlimited number of tests" since if nothing else it requires too many tubes of blood, and patients would complain as would phlebotomists and lab, and more importantly THERE WOULD BE NO PROFIT IN IT since doctors do not own labs.

Since as a right-winger PROFIT is your holy fucking word which you people use to make most of the world miserable, I expect you take my point.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Doctors can charge to review tests too and if you just agree to pay no matter what they will charge as much as they can.

Also some medical practices do own their own labs so that's not true either and one would come to own the other regardless if you could make money that way.

[msc545]

Only an idiot would not know how long it takes to review lab tests since the abnormal results are always prominently marked. It takes me about 1 minute or less to read these. A medical practice can own a lab if it's a physician office laboratory (POL) or a professional medical corporation. However, there are restrictions on who can own the practice and what services it can provide. The restrictions prevent price gouging.

[msc545]

Do you really think that it is worth it to deny universal health care because some doc might charge for an extra minute to review lab tests or some labs might charge slightly more for a test? These things are not that expensive. The real price gouging is in Hospital and Prescription Rx charges - things that the right wing is unwilling to intercede in because that might interfere with their holy profits.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 If others knew and agreed how to do the job as you do, maybe so, but they can alays find other things to look up or run down.

As for the 'laws' trying to control ownership that too is easy enough to work around via other arrangements if you still wanted to game the system that way rather than countless other ways.

Such as simply charging more for the appointment. The point is things change all the time due to technology and economics, from the outside it is basically impossible to tell if your charging more for a good reason or not.

The power to make any attempt to do try and judge your reasoning is itself a power of control that can be and will be abused for political and economic reasons just the same.

If i was for example to hire you to be my doctor i could only ever trust you in competition with other doctors whom I see billing & treating similar people with similar issues.

If we were to try and monitor everyone's practice with a so called 'expert' that 'expert' would then become a common source of abuse and control for all the doctors making it impossible for me to know what if any abuse is coming from him.

All I have is everyone complaining about not being free to do what they want. I have no idea if your all just want more money.

So on net I am better off with talking to your other patient and comparing them with the other doctor's patient via a variety of metrics.

Your work is otherwise too complicated for me to learn myself and judge your choices for myself. You would probably feel the same way about my work.

[msc545]

So you do have alternative ways of checking whether or not I am cheating, and I encourage you to use those methods as you see fit and necessary.

It took me a VERY long time to become educated and obtain a license to practice, and doing illegal things is simply not worth the few dollars more, as a frequent penalty is license loss or restriction. The providers that do this are very often caught and the few I have known were mentally ill. Obviously, most are not, and rather than dollars what we care most about is YOUR health which is why we do what we do, foreign as that may seem to you.

[msc545]

What the hell are federal objects of a foreign nature? I keep reading this and wondering what it means. Please explain

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545
The alternative ways of checking require comparing you to your peers offering the same service. That only works if there is no common source of control such as a bureaucrats telling you both what to do.

Otherwise the bureaucrat's instructions and/or mandate would just as easily be the issue as either of your own poor behaviors. This is important not just in identifying people intentionally behaving badly but people who unintentionally behave badly.

This true of every industry Including mine. I can't tell you how many bosses I've had that were entirely clueless what I did, and what they could expect to get out of me. I can't tell you how much extra work I have to do as they try to figure that out.

This is why you don't want any kind of centralized control, if you have to make professionals face legal consequences for their actions that needs to be done at the State or local level. So that we can know the effects of the same by comparing between states.

[Opinion Owner]

@msc545 Federal object of a forign nature are objects actually common to the external relations of every state as pertaining to forign policy. Examples are War, trade that ACTUALLY has crossed the border, (NOT could is a criteria without limits. That is the despotism of pre-crime )

[NaultD]

It's more that health care, as well as life insurance, isn't profitable and shouldn't be.

You pay for life insurance at an early age, and that yearly bill goes into the stock market, growing. Once you die, that money is tax-free because everyone dies. It's not like driving, because driving is a privilege. You will die.

Healthcare should be treated the same way. You need healthcare more than you will die. It should, by nature, be impossible to make a profit from. Yet, here we are.

The whole first world has this in place except the USA. The USA, being a rich and great country, is left to foot the bill, not just for the USA but for the future of all medical spending. The USA is left holding the global medical profit expectations bag just because we don't want to play ball like the rest of the globe.

[lightbulb27]

I think so. those that failed should have basic level of care. we are rich enough.

but then if people are wasteful, why should I pay them when I have to be efficient? if people smoke and dring and destroy themselves... should I pay for that when I don't do any of that?

it's a tricky issue, and needs oversight. thus...

for each person that receives, there is an assigned "jury" to manage their expenses/treatment and pray for them and care for them. the goal is to manage the inner child to be healthy.

that's how it used to work back in the tribal days...

[MisterWack]

I believe there should be legislative rules in place to keep insurance companies in check so they can’t deny claims from those paying 1,000s of dollars a year for that one time event, less charges from Pharmaceutical companies since it is ridiculous the American people have to spend more than every country we are allies with, also we need to raise the minimum wage from $7.50 to $14 if not to $20, and less charges from the healthcare system since it costs us more than any nation too.

What I will say is there should be benefits for certain citizens by the Federal Government to return its dues to their citizens.

Don’t tell me that we can’t because CEOs pockets have gotten wider with all the money that fill it while our pockets get seemingly more empty, the government serves its billionaires more than the people that cast their ballot for them to do their dreams & desires, and compared to other nations we are dead last stuck paying more for less which is an outrage.

[DrPepper12]

For profit healthcare, prisons & education are an ABOMINATION to a people that call themselves free

[Sevenpointfive]

i think as a citizen of a community (big or small) it should be the same as security, water, electricity and food. it's an inalienable right that should be expected and given freely within that community. everyone has their place. forget money

ideas should be shared. evil and greed has no place in a utopia

[Massageman]

Heck, no.

When I was a kid, my doc appointment was $2.00. The cab rides up and back with my mom were more! If I got shots, the price was $5.00, regardless of the number of shots. - 1, 2, 3- whatever. The most expensive thing back then was running the autoclave to sterilize the needle which was used for multiple injections until the glass tube broke or the needle bent.

Today, my doc's price for a semi-annual exam is $347.00 or more than 170 TIMES what it used to be. Candy bars used to be 5¢. Now they are $2.00, give or take a bit. That's an increase of "only" 40-fold.

Why? Largely, government intervention.

[WhiteBoyChill]

Overregulation and stuff?

[Massageman]

@WhiteBoyChill Medicare and stuff.

[Massageman]

The only time I had my identity used by someone else was for a phony medical claim to Medicare. I knew it wasn't me because of the time stamp on the purchase- I was in a holding pattern over Michigan, waiting to land at OHare which was getting soaked at the time.

[molonski2]

It should be..

You are one of the few countries who have not been able to have a universal health care system.. A lot needs to change.

[DrPepper12]

This is why USA needs to LISTEN instead of just BELLOW "were #1"

[molonski2]

@DrPepper12
The entire concept of taxation and its list..
1 . Universal Health Care
You can't build anything unless you are healthy..

Good point Dr.

[msc545]

Instead of Universal Health Care, we have a trillion-dollar military budget that enriches a few people and we use the overpriced hardware to threaten and kill others.

[molonski2]

@msc545 Sadly , that is so very true.
I'd put health No 1 , then work back from there.
I dont know how you'd do it , but the Insurance industry needs to be completely revamped , I'm sure long ago , insurance started with good intent , but as soon as you have a CEO , then a board , shareholders , and a pool of funds... Well , you can see how this will end.
Why does Buffet buy Insurance companies? Access and usage of the pool.

How are fund management companies valued? FUM = Funds under management..

None of ANY of that should relate to health care , specialists , doctors and hospitals are just as bad. Ohhh the Webs we weave !

[Zack-Bann]

Free healthcare = tripling your taxes every year


And you might not need to see a doctor every year.
So you end up paying the bill for other people. Often people who don’t work and live off of welfare which is also your money


Nothing is ever “free” it’s just funded differently


And I believe no one owes anyone else a meal ticket especially when you work day and night for yours


The only thing that can be done is regulating the medicine industry so as not to get too greedy and overcharge patients with ridiculous margins just to fill their pockets but instead charge the material and service cost as well as a reasonable profit margin to cover growth


Go to any free healthcare country and you can have a medical emergency only to get a doctor’s appointment 3 months later just because it’s overbooked

[abc3643]

I'll pay triple the taxes for free health care.
Why?
Because my health care bills are exceeding my taxes by a vast amount.

[Zack-Bann]

I get it from a selfish perspective but as a society why should someone who barely ever sees a doctor triple their taxes as well to cover part of YOUR bill.

That’s what’s messed up about it

[abc3643]

Not at all.
Think about school taxes.
I have no children yet I have to pay school taxes as part of my property taxes. Why should I do that when I get no benefit from it, right? Well, the benefit I get is the same benefit that all of society gets: having an educated population is better for the nation. Free public universal education has greatly benefitted American society.

So would free public universal healthcare. When people are healthy and don't have to worry about funding their healthcare, they are better and happier workers and likely more productive ultimately leading in higher incomes and lower costs (e. g., less sick time among others).

[Zack-Bann]

In theory it’s great. In practice it just means your purchasing power goes down because the state takes more than half your income

Sure a healthy and educated society is better than an ignorant and sick one but not at the cost of working like a dog for a tiny profit that doesn’t allow you to live a halfway decent life

[msc545]

No place on earth that provides free healthcare does what you described in your last paragraph.

[DrPepper12]

So much misinformation and greediness in one post. Sad!

[msc545]

@DrPepper12 Very. But he has to believe that or decide that perhaps free health care is not so bad and he is just wrong.

[msc545]

@Zack-Bann In the US, stop spending literally 1 trillion $$ per year on the military to support the US war industry, and the problem of your tax increase and that of everyone else is solved. Of course you would never agree to this because 'Merica rah rah...

[Anonymous]

Currently it's not, but it should be. Universal health care would actually reduce health care costs, one of the things that makes health care cost so high, is that uninsured and underinsured people, they don't have the means to get a checkup when a problem arrives, so they keep putting it off, until often times, it progresses into a serious medical emergency that requires an ER visit that is vastly more expensive than a visit with their Dr. The uninsured/underinsured isn't paying for that ER visit, so their cost is shifted to other patients via higher insurance claims.

[jshm2]

Yes. People pay their taxes, and expect schools, police, military and hospitals as well as roads and infrastructure in the least from them.

America is a ponzi scheme posing as a state, at the best of times.

[DrPepper12]

Easily fixed by engaged citizens voting

[exitseven]

People need to be responsible for themselves. The first generation that has for the majority worked for companies that did not have company funded pension plans. It was up to the individual to save for retirement. The majority of people over 60 has less than ten thousand dollars saved. When asked about it most people think they will make a go of it with just social security. Others plan on buying scratch tickets.
The same holds true for healthcare. It was a major consideration whenever I would change jobs. Even when I was young and did not need much healthcare I always made sure I had it in case something happened to one of my kids.
People are too busy going on vacation and going out to eat.

[DrPepper12]

But SHOULD it be a "major consideration"?
How does one budget for how much healthcare needed?

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 When I interviewed fo a job I always checked out the health insurance. I got burned once. I worked for a place that had shitty health insurance. I only was there for 6 months but my son broke his wrist. I submitted all the paperwork and just assumed that everything was paid. A few months after the company moved to another state I start getting bills in the mail from the hospital. The insurance would not cover the emergency room visit. It was the same hospital that became my employer so when I told them the story they forgave the debt. But after that it was always something I checked out.

[msc545]

This does not work. If it did, we would not be having this discussion.

[exitseven]

Look at it this way. The world is sinking and America is the lifeboat. If you overload through lifeboat it will sink and everybody dies

[slatyb]

"responsibility" is an odd word to use. The most we can do is enact legislation to provide universal health care and pay for it from tax revenue.

[DrPepper12]

Yes. It's we the ppls obligation/duty to provide health care for we the people. Full stop.

[foxsquirrell]

All except those who need medical treatment for their irresponsible, negligent, or stupid behavior, and for those who don't want to work. These exceptions should not have free medical treatment. (Free as in paid from taxes)

I can make an example of an irresponsible, negligent, and stupid behavior. Someone over-speeding and ends up needing medical treatment. He/she needs to pay 100% the medical bills.

Another example. At work management instructs employees to wear safety gear. Someone does not wear safety gear and ends up needing medical treatment as a result of not wearing safety gear as required. He/she will have to pay 100% of the medical bills.

And if they don't have cash the government can go after their assets as well. And if they have not even assets they will have a debit balance for as long as they settle it. And they will not be allowed to buy anything before they settle there medical bill.

[foxsquirrell]

Oh its pretty straight forward in a lot of cases! There are some cases I'm sure who are not so clean cut, but many others are obvious as can be. Such as over speeding. (just to mention one example).
I don't understand how you jump on and say that I want to punish people! You don't have better things to say? I want that everyone gets what he deserves. People who need help because of some accident which can happen to anyone will be helped. It is the other group which need to pay 100% of the medical bills. How is this wanting to punish people? Not letting irresponsible, and careless people benefit from hard earned taxes should have been the rule from day one of any set of laws! I can't believe it that you always find people like you who typically start with ' Its not easy...' If it is not easy to implement such a simple rule it is because of people like you. Not trying to attack you, but I think it is the truth.

[msc545]

You are right - I am one of the people who would try to keep you from doing this stuff. Wanting to let people who are ill keep being ill instead of trying to heal them is terribly punitive. Mercy and forgiveness and empathy are important virtues that you seem to be lacking. You seem to be more worried that somebody might cost you a few dollars.

[msc545]

Besides you would have to pay to have people decide whether the condition was "irresponsibly caused" and I promise that would cost you more than treating it.

[foxsquirrell]

Where the hell do you come in the equation? Are you a lawyer? Is that why you think it is going to cost a lot. Or are you a consultant in the medical profession? Listen, a lot of cases will be standard found on a list. Example. Someone is over speeding he gets into an accident and needs medical care. The bill is on him. VERY SIMPLE. Now, if he wants to take the case to court and is allowed to do such a thing even if it is so obvious that he is responsible, guess who is going to pay for all the legal costs? If he wins he does not pay a dime, legal or medical, if he loses, he pays the legal and the medical. ALL of them. You seem to be one of two things. Either someone who thinks he knows a lot, a lot more than everyone and ends up complicating the simplest things for the frustration and irritation of everybody, OR you are rejecting what I am saying because it goes against your financial interest. In simpler words because you are afraid that you make less money! That's why you are coming up with these arguments, not because of some benevolent intention but from pure greed. You are already mentioned that you have to be a huge amount of money somewhere along your arguing in fact. And instead of having a responsible society lets have a society engineered so that thieves like you can keep making hundreds of thousands of dollars each year if not millions. Same shit in the legal system, how the court operates with the bale and not bale, to mention only one thing. You are just a bunch of guys in collusion to siphon money from society nothing else. Forget it that you are going to convince me otherwise. Good day.

[msc545]

You need to hire experts to do this sort of thing, and experts are very expensive. A few cases that require this and a few lost court battles, and your infantile rage will take a back seat to costs very rapidly.

[foxsquirrell]

Well you call it infantile rage. Who are you? It is your opinion. I think it is understandable to put it mildly.
Besides, so you are not actually against the idea that people should take responsibility for the damage that they do, and that other people should not pay for the damage other people do. Isn't that correct? It seems that your problem is that in order to make people take responsibility for what they do and make them pay for it it costs a lot more money. Isn't that your arguing in a nutshell?

[msc545]

Congratulations! You seem able to read. I realize that the most important thing in the world to you is your money and you are terrified. It's somebody somewhere might spend a dollar that they shouldn't be able to spend according to your morality. Fortunately for us your morality is not the prevailing one. We are going to take care of sick people and we're going to spend some of your tax money doing it. Whether you like it or not. You may not have a functioning conscience with the rest of us do.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

Hmm if not nation's responsibility then local responsibility, per state decision but the risk... Could be that the states raising taxes will lose population? So they will lose tax money?

[cinema75]

Yes, it is. We pay taxes, therefore it should be universal. Healthcare shouldn’t be connected to an employer.

[dragoblack]

It shouldn't have to be, but USA medical regulations are so unaffordable by working class, that it needs to happen, until the government stops taking bribes from big pharma/medical... which sadly, we all know that won't happen.

[phraseology]

You should stop asking questions. You don't actually want answers.

[Flatmanlewis]

No. Not at all. They have a responsibility to perhaps regulate the industry but not to provide it. That’s fiscally unrealistic.

[DrPepper12]

If only some other nations had solved this fiscal dilemma...

[Graptemys79]

I do not think it is the government's responsibility. But how we cover people who cannot afford health care is a good question. Certainly we don't want to see people suffer.

[DrPepper12]

Ok. Whose responsibility then?

[Anonymous]

Who else will do it? Or could accomplish it as easily?

[Anonymous]

It's the responsibility of the government to stay out of healthcare as much as possible so costs can go down. I don't believe human beings should be forced to pay for other human beings' medical care.

[msc545]

Costs will not go down by keeping the government out of healthcare. We already have seen how poorly the private sector manages healthcare costs.

[Opinion Owner]

IME privately paid medical care has been much better then Medicare and VA coverage

[msc545]

In has not been. If you insist it has, provide some data.

[Opinion Owner]

I said my experience. Do you have data to show that our private care has been worse than VA and Medicare? Or is the claim you're making specifically about my personal experience?

[msc545]

Qualitatively, you are correct - it is not worse and in some cases a bit better. However, quantitatively is a hell of a lot worse in terms of cost and availability. Care that you cannot get due to cost is far worse.

[Opinion Owner]

Do government healthcare agencies ever deny care and have delays that lead to poor health outcomes?

Do we have data that shows better health outcomes from the VA compared to private care? That would be interesting for the discussion.

[msc545]

The VA is a good example of bureaucratically deficient care that is often so bad as to seriously adversely affect access. The quality of the actual care itself is usually pretty good if you can ever get it.

Medicare is easy to use and easy to bill with good access. Quality of care depends on the patient's selection of the provider. As a provider myself, I have no problems with Medicare at all relative to rates or reimbursement or anything else - much better than private insurance.

[DrPepper12]

Thats a twisted position to take. Grotesque really

[msc545]

And what exactly is twisted and grotesque about it?

[DrPepper12]

OP take "I don't believe human beings should be forced to pay for other human beings' medical care"

It's a deeply disturbed position from a sociopath.

[msc545]

@DrPepper12 Sociopaths believe that any cooperation or consideration between people is "communism".

[Twalli]

It's not, it should be, but at tje present time it is not.

[Agape93]

Yeap but they'll never do it before we go extinct

[noohair]

It is each persons resopnsibility to take care of yourself.

[Anonymous]

No. It's everyone's individual responsibility to look after themselves as adults and as citizens.

[DrPepper12]

Just deplorable. How do you get a to this point in your life? Who hurt you?

[msc545]

What about those who cannot - should we just let them die in the streets? If so -

I know you will worry about the cost of picking up dead bodies, so how is that cost covered? What about cremation or burial? The horror - even more costs!! What about that?

[msc545]

You seem to be answering a question with a series of questions of your own. Why is that?

[beefcakebradybatson]

D**N SKIPPY !!!

[PrettyCrumblBb]

Yes!

[Pterodon]

Nope it’s yours

[QuietRunner]

no it isn't