Broccoli

[Jon Miller]

The current US system is a crime against humanity and one of the clearest examples there is for extremely dangerous unintended consequences of government taxation.

JM

[Dinner]

If the government's not paying for it who the hell cares how much we spend on health care? If I want to spend 30% of my money on health care I damn well can if I want to. On the other hand, I have no taste for paying for health care for others.

It creates a huge amount of inefficiency and drag on the over all US economy. Yes, we can indeed cover everyone and spend a whole lot less without lowering quality at all. You cut out the useless middlemen who take a cut but do nothing to improve quality and you start bulk buying medications and medical equipment directly thus introducing economies of scale which drive down prices. That's how Walmart gets you cheap underwear and that's how countries like the UK and Germany became so much more efficient at providing their citizens with health care.

[PLATO]

Companies can't do this anymore because it costed them $1500 per month, which is a lot of money. It has nothing to do with government regulations.

That $1500 per month could have been yours to spend how you wished... and the europeans don't pay much more in taxes than the US you get health care on top of what the state provides (which is more than the US in every way but military).

If we had a working health care system the US would be even more highly paid than the rest of the world...

JM

At the time I was a pretty marketable commodity...any company that wanted me would have had to pay the price...

[PLATO]

You pay more.

Seriously though, the whole point is that you had a decent job. So do I, but it wouldn't matter if I was unemployed, a senior citizen, a child or a middle aged person with serious pre-existing conditions, the whole thing would still have cost nothing. By offering decent affordable coverage only to those fortunate enough to gain it, you create a completely unequal society.

It's a valid point. The company I worked for was pretty unique in what they offered even back then. My point is that private enterprise an provide quality coverage at a low cost to the individual if they wanted to, but the stockholders would scream. That private company was really private...as in owned by one individual who happened to be one of the richest men in the world.

I am not against change, but I believe that it needs to be spearheaded by motivation of private enterprise and not government oversight. European and Americanpopulations are different. What works there would probably not work here...mainly because, I hate to say it, because many Americans would abuse the system

[Jon Miller]

At the time I was a pretty marketable commodity...any company that wanted me would have had to pay the price...

But you were still paying for it, since it wasn't money that was going into your pocket (but was being paid for you by the company).

JM

[Jon Miller]

I wonder how much healthcare reform would be solved by the simple rule that companies must put n the paystubs how much they are 'deducting' for healthcare.

JM

[DaShi]

What does ACA have to do with universal healthcare exactly?

ACA is/was supposed to create a universal healthcare system without scrapping private insurers.

Why do I keep reading about Europeans coming to the U.S. for Medical treatment?

If so, you'd know that only the very wealthy come to the US for medical treatment. Even then, it's predominately for specialized care.

[Dinner]

Insurance companies are the first worthless middlemen who should be abolished. The next are distribution companies which aren't needed if hospitals buy goods directly from the manufacturer. Every layer of middlemen you have in the system is an additional layer of inefficiency in the system. That's why Walmart bulk buys directly from manufacturers instead of buying from distributors; cut out the middlemen and save money immediately.

France has private health care providers but everyone has insurance from the state universally. That's still better than our system but way more costly than the UK's system which has providers nationally owned. There are lots of models we can choose between and all of them are superior to our current system.

[DaShi]

Single payer would be much better than Obamacare. Hopefully SCOTUS will strike down the entirety of Obamacare so Congress can replace it with a sane system.

That's not likely to happen anytime soon. One party will always sabotage the other's attempt. Even with a majority the senate and house and control of the presidency, do you really believe that either party is capable of developing a sane system?

[Dinner]

That's why the parliamentary system is so much better. The party in power actually gets to govern.

[Hauldren Collider]

The current US system is a crime against humanity and one of the clearest examples there is for extremely dangerous unintended consequences of government taxation.

JM

Well that's certainly not hyperbole.

[Jon Miller]

What else do you call it when you doom millions to poverty and death due to not being able to afford our extravagant and inefficient health care system?

If we just stole money from sick people and killed them, would it really be different?

JM

[Hauldren Collider]

What else do you call it when you doom millions to poverty and death due to not being able to afford our extravagant and inefficient health care system?

If we just stole money from sick people and killed them, would it really be different?

JM

Listen to yourself, Jon.

To address what you're saying, I disagree that we're dooming anyone to poverty and/or death, although I will concede there are many severe inefficiencies in the way we use insurance to finance healthcare. The fact that some people aren't as capable of getting healthcare as others isn't dooming anyone to anything, though. You seem to think that if there is someone who gets better healthcare by virtue of having more money, there is some sort of inherent injustice there. I flat-out disagree. Consider that the healthcare received by the poorest americans probably exceeds the healthcare that the rich would have received 50 years ago. Was there an injustice for the rich 50 years ago, by virtue of them not receiving the quality care we get today? No. Your complaint is fundamentally about the fact that there is a gap in wealth between rich and poor (duh), and that those of greater wealth can afford more things (namely healthcare). Boo hoo?

That being said, if there is a government policy that can reduce the inefficiencies of the insurance market, I'm all for that. Cutting deadweight is good. But let's not go around claiming that simply because poor people don't get as good care as rich people that we might as well be "stealing money from sick people and killing them".

Note: If I am misinterpreting your complaint, then I'm sorry, but that's how it came across to me.

[DaShi]

It's obvious that you are misinterpreting his point.

Also, the healthcare received by the poorest Americans is either paid for by taxes or not received at all. This isn't about rich vs poor. But if you truly believe that only those who can afford healthcare should receive it, you should familiarize yourself with places where that actually happens.

[giblets]

HC, I think you just erected a strawman, then poured gasoline on it and set it on fire. Bravo.