|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all.
Could the cost per person be bloated compared to other countries because pharma is unregulated in their prices.
|
On January 13 2018 02:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. The US is afraid of risk pooling ("I aint paying for you being sick") which is what is needed to keep health insurance affordable and they are afraid of intervening in a 'free' market which is how you keep prices low. (Free market doesn't work in healthcare because you often don't have a choice where to be treated for your sudden Stroke or other illness).
That would be a reasonable perspective if the U.S wasn't spending like 30% more then the next nation on health care per person. They'd probably have the best in the world if they weren't being taken advantage of.
|
|
|
On January 13 2018 02:18 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. Could the cost per person be bloated compared to other countries because pharma is unregulated in their prices.
Almost certainly is, among other things. Point is it's not a lack of spending, it's too much corruption.
|
On January 13 2018 02:18 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. The US is afraid of risk pooling ("I aint paying for you being sick") which is what is needed to keep health insurance affordable and they are afraid of intervening in a 'free' market which is how you keep prices low. (Free market doesn't work in healthcare because you often don't have a choice where to be treated for your sudden Stroke or other illness). That would be a reasonable perspective if the U.S wasn't spending like 30% more then the next nation on health care per person. They'd probably have the best in the world if they weren't being taken advantage of.
??
They are spending more because they are afraid of the measures the rest of the world uses to keep their cost down.
What are you disagreeing with?
|
On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all.
If you tell people they will pay less in taxes instead of more on premiums a large subset of Americans will yell socialism and shut down.
It's a conceptual objection, not rooted in facts or figures. It's purely an emotional reaction to the concept of "undeserving" people getting access to what they have.
This is why "charity" is the solution for most right leaning capitalists. They genuinely believe the myth of meritocracy and as such, those without are that way by their own making, and on the rare occasion it's not, that's where charity steps in because no one could look at someone in such circumstances and turn a blind eye.
Of course the reality is that people turn a blind eye every day to the millions of people left out. What a charity based safety net allows is for people to only save the people they think are worth saving and not spend their money/resources on people they don't personally approve of helping.
The objection to universal healthcare then isn't an objection to paying less for more/better service, it's helping people they don't want to help.
|
On January 13 2018 02:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:18 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 02:15 Gorsameth wrote:On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. The US is afraid of risk pooling ("I aint paying for you being sick") which is what is needed to keep health insurance affordable and they are afraid of intervening in a 'free' market which is how you keep prices low. (Free market doesn't work in healthcare because you often don't have a choice where to be treated for your sudden Stroke or other illness). That would be a reasonable perspective if the U.S wasn't spending like 30% more then the next nation on health care per person. They'd probably have the best in the world if they weren't being taken advantage of. ?? They are spending more because they are afraid of the measures the rest of the world uses to keep their cost down. What are you disagreeing with?
Sorry I misread what you wrote  I don't disagree with anything you wrote on a second read through.
|
On January 13 2018 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. If you tell people they will pay less in taxes instead of more on premiums a large subset of Americans will yell socialism and shut down. It's a conceptual objection, not rooted in facts or figures. It's purely an emotional reaction to the concept of "undeserving" people getting access to what they have. This is why "charity" is the solution for most right leaning capitalists. They genuinely believe the myth of meritocracy and as such, those without are that way by their own making, and on the rare occasion it's not, that's where charity steps in because no one could look at someone in such circumstances and turn a blind eye. Of course the reality is that people turn a blind eye every day to the millions of people left out. What a charity based safety net allows is for people to only save the people they think are worth saving and not spend their money/resources on people they don't personally approve of helping. The objection to universal healthcare then isn't an objection to paying less for more/better service, it's helping people they don't want to help.
I think there is a spectrum of cynicism between uldridge and you, and I'm definitely closer to you but not that far down the line. Interesting thought though.
|
On January 13 2018 01:47 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 01:47 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:41 bo1b wrote:On January 13 2018 01:38 zlefin wrote:On January 13 2018 01:36 bo1b wrote:
It seems American government spending as a whole has this problem though, how do you suggest cutting through it? Could dramatically improve U.S health care per dollar spent if you solve it. that's a tricky one; I'm only good at figuring out and identifying good/bad policy. i'm very bad at the politics of convincing people and getting it implemented (some of which depends on catering to and abusing the irrationalities of voters). I'm not sure how to combat government waste at that size, which to me seems a bit of an intractable problem. it is hard indeed; the problem is it's an outgrowth of misleading voters and/or other aggregate effects of human behavior. it's hard to get leaders focused on actually sensible thoughtful policy. and i'm certainly not gonna manage to win any elections. some of it is an unfortunate but inevitable outcome of democracy. If that's the case is it really possibly to cut spending by 50%?
politically feasible? no. (unless someone manages to convince the electorate otherwise)
but that wasn't the issue; the issue was about the economic and strategic effects of such a cut.
|
On January 13 2018 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. If you tell people they will pay less in taxes instead of more on premiums a large subset of Americans will yell socialism and shut down. It's a conceptual objection, not rooted in facts or figures. It's purely an emotional reaction to the concept of "undeserving" people getting access to what they have. This is why "charity" is the solution for most right leaning capitalists. They genuinely believe the myth of meritocracy and as such, those without are that way by their own making, and on the rare occasion it's not, that's where charity steps in because no one could look at someone in such circumstances and turn a blind eye. Of course the reality is that people turn a blind eye every day to the millions of people left out. What a charity based safety net allows is for people to only save the people they think are worth saving and not spend their money/resources on people they don't personally approve of helping. The objection to universal healthcare then isn't an objection to paying less for more/better service, it's helping people they don't want to help.
My favorite part is how farmers and the like, among the most opposed to "socialism", benefit the most from socialist programs in the US. Our entire farming industry is kind of a joke when you look at all the ways our government bends over backwards to accommodate the poor work farmers do in our country. They are particularly bad at their job and they continue to get as many subsidies as are necessary to keep their shitty businesses afloat.
|
I mean, just try to answer the question: why isn't there universal health care in the USA yet if it's so much more economically sound for the individual?
People fought hard to get the rights and social care they receive today and this is because they recognized how shitty the situation was for them. Not only were they poor, they died in factories, they died young and they led hard fucking lives.
I think the US has a fundamentally different attitude in this situation, where it's more of an every man for himself type of situation.
On January 13 2018 02:30 Mohdoo wrote:
My favorite part is how farmers and the like, among the most opposed to "socialism", benefit the most from socialist programs in the US. Our entire farming industry is kind of a joke when you look at all the ways our government bends over backwards to accommodate the poor work farmers do in our country. They are particularly bad at their job and they continue to get as many subsidies as are necessary to keep their shitty businesses afloat.
Farmers and other primary producers get the worse end of the stick over here. Exploitation is pretty big here. Margins are razor sharp, so it's very difficult to compete. It's sad, because I think they're so fundamental to a good society and who in this day and age seriously considers becoming a farmer if you're not born into it? (I would consider becoming a farmer, though lol)
|
On January 13 2018 02:31 Uldridge wrote:
I mean, just try to answer the question: why isn't there universal health care in the USA yet if it's so much more economically sound for the individual?
People fought hard to get the rights and social care they receive today and this is because they recognized how shitty the situation was for them. Not only were they poor, they died in factories, they died young and they led hard fucking lives.
I think the US has a fundamentally different attitude in this situation, where it's more of an every man for himself type of situation.
Somehow, poor rural people have been convinced there is some group of people more poor than them who would be stealing their money. No one is really sure who this group of people are, but poor rural folks are assured this group does indeed exist and is out to plunder their 35k/year salary.
|
On January 13 2018 02:30 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 13 2018 02:09 bo1b wrote:
Good health care is rooted in effective spending of money at a high enough level to maintain a certain level of care. The U.S spends more per person then any other nation, so really, I don't think they're too afraid of healthcare at all. If you tell people they will pay less in taxes instead of more on premiums a large subset of Americans will yell socialism and shut down. It's a conceptual objection, not rooted in facts or figures. It's purely an emotional reaction to the concept of "undeserving" people getting access to what they have. This is why "charity" is the solution for most right leaning capitalists. They genuinely believe the myth of meritocracy and as such, those without are that way by their own making, and on the rare occasion it's not, that's where charity steps in because no one could look at someone in such circumstances and turn a blind eye. Of course the reality is that people turn a blind eye every day to the millions of people left out. What a charity based safety net allows is for people to only save the people they think are worth saving and not spend their money/resources on people they don't personally approve of helping. The objection to universal healthcare then isn't an objection to paying less for more/better service, it's helping people they don't want to help. My favorite part is how farmers and the like, among the most opposed to "socialism", benefit the most from socialist programs in the US. Our entire farming industry is kind of a joke when you look at all the ways our government bends over backwards to accommodate the poor work farmers do in our country. They are particularly bad at their job and they continue to get as many subsidies as are necessary to keep their shitty businesses afloat.
Don't even get me started on the fucking Fanjul brothers...
America loves it's socialism as long as it's making some capitalist douche bags tons of money.
|
On January 13 2018 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 02:31 Uldridge wrote:
I mean, just try to answer the question: why isn't there universal health care in the USA yet if it's so much more economically sound for the individual?
People fought hard to get the rights and social care they receive today and this is because they recognized how shitty the situation was for them. Not only were they poor, they died in factories, they died young and they led hard fucking lives.
I think the US has a fundamentally different attitude in this situation, where it's more of an every man for himself type of situation. Somehow, poor rural people have been convinced there is some group of people more poor than them who would be stealing their money. No one is really sure who this group of people are, but poor rural folks are assured this group does indeed exist and is out to plunder their 35k/year salary.
Its the wealthy people in the country that convince them. The biggest push to remove the ACA came from the wealthy who's taxes were increased as a result of the bill to pre-bush tax cuts levels. They will continue to stoke that fire as long at they can.
|
You have the same people over here though. Low schooled people complaining about the state "stealing their money", when they don't understand the benefits they (could) reap from it. I think the issue is that for a very large portion of the population (even me, fuck I know jack shit about law, bureaucratic systems, administration forms, options, economy, ...), a lot of the systems in place are too obscure. They don't know they exist and getting through the hassle of understanding it takes too much time/is too difficult/too exhausting for people so they don't/can't bother with it.
Sadly, as society becomes more complex, keeping it simple isn't possible or becomes incredibly more difficult. So you either let a large part of your population become a complacent drag of a backbone, or you do away with them. Human value system dictates you can't really do the latter, so ...
|
On January 13 2018 00:29 Introvert wrote:Trump said something he shouldn't have, but criticizing him isn't enough, you must throw out your reason too. Trump denied saying that about Haiti, which seems true*. Meanwhile we have all these high horse media outlets who feel like they MUST use the exact word even though it was something he said in a private conversation, as if a potty mouth president is new. No sense, all drama. * + Show Spoiler +
Exactly. Criticizing him isn’t enough. If it’s a nine or ten on the outrageous remark, put another lie and a half on top to crank it up to 15 (the US is a shithole country, or he referred to Haiti). It doesn’t make Trump look better, it just makes more than Trump look worse.
|
On January 13 2018 00:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2018 00:47 Danglars wrote:On January 12 2018 22:48 farvacola wrote:
As I have said repeatedly, this notion that you can accurately describe the US via broad metrics or generalizations entirely mistakes the extremely different-among-itself nature of this country. Louisiana, to pick one among a variety of "bad places here in the US," can easily compete with some of the worst nations in the world in terms of healthcare, law and order, and even basic sanitation. And it's not alone. So yeah, Mr. California on his high horse complete with "if it's so bad, go to Burundi" spiel entirely misses the point. There are millions of Americans who live in conditions that absolutely justify statements of national shame, and sentiments that amount to "well there are some awesome places in the US too, don't complain that way" are tone-deaf. Louisiana isn’t bad enough to compete with some of the worst countries. You have to put heavy qualifications on what you mean by the worst countries to even get close to a sane opinion. Who cares? If people in Louisiana can’t get quality healthcare, education and services when compared to other Americans, what does it matter?
Because he didn’t compare Louisiana with other states, he compared Louisiana with “some of the worst nations in the world.” I don’t know, maybe you can admit that’s dead wrong before commenting that nobody cares?
|
On January 13 2018 02:40 Uldridge wrote:
You have the same people over here though. Low schooled people complaining about the state "stealing their money", when they don't understand the benefits they (could) reap from it. I think the issue is that for a very large portion of the population (even me, fuck I know jack shit about law, bureaucratic systems, administration forms, options, economy, ...), a lot of the systems in place are too obscure. They don't know they exist and getting through the hassle of understanding it takes too much time/is too difficult/too exhausting for people so they don't/can't bother with it.
Sadly, as society becomes more complex, keeping it simple isn't possible or becomes incredibly more difficult. So you either let a large part of your population become a complacent drag of a backbone, or you do away with them. Human value system dictates you can't really do the latter, so ...
Designing systems to be used for an enormous amount of land containing 323 million to be simple and straight forward is just straight up impossible. It is not possible to design a system of government that someone who drives a tractor all day can understand. The country has too many unique areas and situations. Too many industries. California can't be compared to Indiana. Florida can't be compared to Oregon. There is just too much difference for us to have a quick reference sheet showing "what the fuck is a government, anyway?".
So then it comes down to just assuming the government is doing a decent job. But areas of the south suffer so much from cultural and cognitive stagnation that the idea of opposing the british government as revolutionaries is still somewhat fresh. Add in the fact that they get their asses handed to them in the revolutionary war and you've got a really solid foundation for government skepticism. Their communities are so spread out, have so little reason for people to immigrate and are so homogenous that nothing ever really changes.
|
Pretty sure we can go to virtually any country in the world and find some people living better than poor people in Louisiana.
|
He called an entire continent a shithole and wanted to know why we were letting people from there immigrate to the US. There are like 54 nation in Africa. Every news network in the world is going to pick that up.
And if Trump didn't want it to get to the press, he shouldn't have said it in a meeting filled with congress members and their staff. Calling that discussion private is completely mis-characterizing the setting where he said it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
