No buddy, making it so that everyone has access to an essential service and making it so that corporations can't make profit of people's misery is just common sense.
I can't think of a single country that instituted any form of of single payer healthcare, and regretted it. Not a single one.
In Belgium we have semi-single payer. (involving mutualities) and we're still a million times better off than Americans with their for profit system. When people here take health insurance it isn't to ensure they can get essential healthcare, because our governmentally funded healthcare takes care of that. What we can get out of insurance is extra luxuries like say a single room in the hospital, or cutting down the out of pocket costs of healthcare that's left after your mutuality has already paid back over 75% of the expenses.(and for the record, our medical bills are way lower than those in the US to begin with)
Our government also is the one to keep down the costs of healthcare and medication, making it so that our hospitals and medicines are cheaper than the ones you have in the US. Even with taxes counted in, we pay less for healthcare in a year, than you guys do in one month. And we get MORE out of it. Dental, hospital, medication, physical and mental healthcare, regular access to doctors, nurse visits at home when needed, and so on and so on. And we can do all this, without having to check if the doctor we visit takes our insurance our not, because it's nationalized. This means that I could go to any doctor in the country and they'd all work with the same system. Which means more freedom, more choice.
It also means, that because people can afford to go to their regular doctor for non urgent care, they don't leave illnesses to linger until it's too late, meaning that our emergency rooms are much less crowded. And people coming in with actual emergencies are treated quicker and better, because doctors don't have to rush from one patient to another.
On top of that, when our doctor examines us, he doesn't have to worry whether or not some for profit insurance company will be willing to pay back the expenses. So whether or not you can get a treatment depends on whether your doctor thinks you need it, rather than on whether some clueless guy who just cares about the bottom line, thinks your insurance covers it or not.
But see, that's what we call common sense in healthcare.
Yet with all of those claims my statement that it is far left still stands. You are just already on the far left.
And it may be common sense to you and that's fine. Everyone has the right to make their own choice. For me the idea of giving up that much control and power to the Federal government isn't common sense, it's asking for corruptions, asking for waste and abuse of power. It's asking for trouble and needs to be prevented from happening. That's common sense to me.
Except that it's the other way around. Leaving healthcare to private for profit insurance welcomes corruption, welcomes waste, and welcomes abuse of power.
Leaving healthcare to the government, means that it has to be accountable to the people, rather than to some number pushers who are just trying to make a profit out of it, so that some rich guy can buy another yacht.
That might be the socialist in me, but I much prefer trusting the government, over some faceless corporation who's only concern is, how much money they can make out of something.
Wrong, both government and private run health care will have corruption, waste, and abuse. (personally I believe government would have more than private companies.) The different is I can change companies or even call on the government to use regulations to improve private companies (which is what needs to happen) but when it is the government that is healthcare that becomes much harder, and given in the US both the healthcare and those regulating it would be part of the Executive branch it would be asking one group to check itself.
That might be the socialist in me, but I much prefer trusting the government, over some faceless corporation who's only concern is, how much money they can make out of something.
See I'm the other way around. I trust companies to be predictable and stable in ways I don't expect of the Federal Government. And I have no problems with profits.
See, that's where you're wrong. I can fire (aka vote out) the politicians, if I don't like their work. I can't fire the heads of a multimillion dollar corporation like the ones in charge of insurance companies, if they decide to screw people over.
On top of that, thanks to our system, we don't depend on our employers for healthcare. So companies can't keep us under their control by their ability to give or take away healthcare.
If I quit a job, I still have the same healthcare that I did before. At no point do I have to worry that being out of a job, means that my family could lose their access to healthcare.
As for choice, you're forgetting that I did say semi-single payer. As a Belgian, I have the choice between joining several mutualities, all of whom offer their own incentives for people to join. (though honestly, most people join one based on their politics)
For example, I'm a member of the ABVV, which is the socialist mutualities, there's also the liberal, christian and independent mutualities. All of which are connected to their own political parties, and unions (more so in the past, than now)
If I don't like the way my mutuality handles things, I can always join one of the others. The more people join, the more funds they get from the government, so they're inclined to offer the best work possible to keep their funding.
I know what I can expect from my government. And yeah, Belgian bureaucracy can be horrible as well, but I'd still trust the government a million times more than I would trust some private company. Primarily because the government works for me (and every other Belgian), and they succeed when as many Belgians as possible, have the best possible lives.
In contrast to private companies who only care about making money, and would prefer not being accountable to anyone. (just look at how they're paying off the republicans in the US to get tax cuts for the rich, at the expense of the wellbeing of everyone else)
That's another difference between Belgium and the US. We have way more parties than you guys do. Parties with an actual chance of getting into the government that is. So since a vote for a smaller party isn't thrown away, like a third party vote is in the US, people here are more likely to vote for another party, if the one they voted for before, isn't doing the job they're supposed to do.
See, that's where you're wrong. I can fire (aka vote out) the politicians, if I don't like their work. I can't fire the heads of a multimillion dollar corporation like the ones in charge of insurance companies, if they decide to screw people over.
But I can change the company I use. Which is faster and more reliable than hoping enough other people also want to change politicians (and in the US the re-election rate normally sits at 80% or more so chances of changing them large scale isn't likely).
And when I said choice I was talking about you liking single payer. That is your choice. As is your choice to trust your government more. Your experiences are clearly better than mine have been. I'll take private over public 9 times out of 10. Other than more regulations I want government out of healthcare.
That's another difference between Belgium and the US. We have way more parties than you guys do. Parties with an actual chance of getting into the government that is. I am fully in favor of more active parties but the problem is most of the third parties in the US don't really try. Locally to me we have a rather active libertarian party and they do get elected but we are in the minority in that.
Sure, you can change companies...in theory. The brutal reality, though, for far too many prople with significant health issues (which, lbr, is virtually all of us, once we get to a certain age) is that the costs can get jacked up to where only the suoer rich can afford tham. At that pont, when your "choices" all want to charge you more money than you can possibly afford to pay, the whole idea of "choice" goes right out the window.
I'm guessing that you're relatively young and free (so far) of any serious health issues that require ongoing care and/or medication. If not, please don't hesitate to set me straight-- but most people I've known who talk like you are in that category. Being faced with the harsh realities of desperately needing care that they can’t afford to pay for has a tendency to make people think about these things differently.
The brutal reality, though, for far too many prople with significant health issues (which, lbr, is virtually all of us, once we get to a certain age) is that the costs can get jacked up to where only the suoer rich can afford tham
Yes that is a problem, your answer is let the government run everything, My answer is have the government regulate private companies more.
If I'm wrong, please do let me know.
No you are right I have been lucky. My mother on the other hand has not been. And she has VA medical (government run healthcare for retired military) and I have seen her have to wait months for appointment, go years without a doctor, only a nurse practitioner that will see her when she can get appointments. Being told that she has to drive an hour north to the VA center because they will not let her go to a local ER after she fell and broke her arm (which they then failed to tell her was broken until a week later and this was just last month). I've seen her sent home by one doctor saying she was fine and later that same day my aunt drove her back to the VA center where she ended up staying for over a week because she almost died from kidney failure.
So as I said else where in this thread we've clearly had different experiences with our different governments. I do not trust mine to run healthcare.
"See I'm the other way around. I trust companies to be predictable and stable in ways I don't expect of the Federal Government. And I have no problems with profits."
Sorry, but "I trust companies" is an oxymoron afaic. To be quite honest, I don't "trust companies" to do shit, except make as much money as they can any way that they can. (Which, lbr, is what they exist for, after all.) What I have a problem with is some company making decisions about MY health and well-being based on nothing other than THEIR profit margins. Afaic, that is just plain fucked up.
Beyond that I will point out two things. I said 'I trust companies to be predictable and stable' I don't trust them full stop but I believe in five years they won't have pulled a full U-turn and changed all the rules for healthcare.
Because what if the ACA had been a single payer system? What if the Republicans had a few more votes for their repel? And the U.S. goes from full healthcare to no healthcare. See how that's a problem, because I do. I trust companies not to do that. I don't trust the government not to.
What I have a problem with is some company making decisions about MY health and well-being based on nothing other than THEIR profit margins. So you'd rather it be the government making those decisions about your health based on budget deficit and debt ceiling? how is that any better?
your use of "giving up" implies that you have an actual choice which, unless you're either extremely wealthy, or actually have significant stock in a health insurance company, simply isn't true. You do not have a choice over anything they or any for-profit company chooses to do. You have the illusory belief in a choice and impact created by the notion of a free market that doesn't actually exist.
How do I, as a working class person respond to a corporation pricing me out of my life-sustaining medicine? Especially if it's a medicine they have a market monopoly over? I can't vote out the CEO nor can I seek out cheaper, legal alternatives, and that CEO has no obligations to me because they don't need my vote. There is at least a level of direct and obvious accountability when the government runs it. I can at least vote out a corrupt politician pushing absurd health care laws or vote against harmful healthcare legislation at local levels.
your use of "giving up" implies that you have an actual choice which, You have the illusory belief in a choice and impact created by the notion of a free market that doesn't actually exist. So I can't make a choice between different companies because last I checked I have five companies and over a dozen plans to pick from which sounds like more of a choice than the government being like here is your plan now shut up and be happy.
I can at least vote out a corrupt politician pushing absurd health care laws or vote against harmful healthcare legislation at local levels.
And you work to replace them with politician who regulate the market in positives ways you like, which is something I fully support.
What if I told you that you could still choose between "five companies and over a dozen plans" if single payer happens? Do you think private medical insurance doesn't exist in countries with universal health care?
But why should I be paying twice for my healthcare? Unless you mean to tell me that single payer has no price tag attached and would need neither a premium nor a tax ingress?
I can't think of a single country that instituted any form of of single payer healthcare, and regretted it. Not a single one.
In Belgium we have semi-single payer. (involving mutualities) and we're still a million times better off than Americans with their for profit system.
When people here take health insurance it isn't to ensure they can get essential healthcare, because our governmentally funded healthcare takes care of that. What we can get out of insurance is extra luxuries like say a single room in the hospital, or cutting down the out of pocket costs of healthcare that's left after your mutuality has already paid back over 75% of the expenses.(and for the record, our medical bills are way lower than those in the US to begin with)
Our government also is the one to keep down the costs of healthcare and medication, making it so that our hospitals and medicines are cheaper than the ones you have in the US. Even with taxes counted in, we pay less for healthcare in a year, than you guys do in one month. And we get MORE out of it. Dental, hospital, medication, physical and mental healthcare, regular access to doctors, nurse visits at home when needed, and so on and so on.
And we can do all this, without having to check if the doctor we visit takes our insurance our not, because it's nationalized. This means that I could go to any doctor in the country and they'd all work with the same system.
Which means more freedom, more choice.
It also means, that because people can afford to go to their regular doctor for non urgent care, they don't leave illnesses to linger until it's too late, meaning that our emergency rooms are much less crowded. And people coming in with actual emergencies are treated quicker and better, because doctors don't have to rush from one patient to another.
On top of that, when our doctor examines us, he doesn't have to worry whether or not some for profit insurance company will be willing to pay back the expenses. So whether or not you can get a treatment depends on whether your doctor thinks you need it, rather than on whether some clueless guy who just cares about the bottom line, thinks your insurance covers it or not.
But see, that's what we call common sense in healthcare.
Reply
And it may be common sense to you and that's fine. Everyone has the right to make their own choice. For me the idea of giving up that much control and power to the Federal government isn't common sense, it's asking for corruptions, asking for waste and abuse of power. It's asking for trouble and needs to be prevented from happening. That's common sense to me.
Reply
Leaving healthcare to the government, means that it has to be accountable to the people, rather than to some number pushers who are just trying to make a profit out of it, so that some rich guy can buy another yacht.
That might be the socialist in me, but I much prefer trusting the government, over some faceless corporation who's only concern is, how much money they can make out of something.
Reply
Wrong, both government and private run health care will have corruption, waste, and abuse. (personally I believe government would have more than private companies.) The different is I can change companies or even call on the government to use regulations to improve private companies (which is what needs to happen) but when it is the government that is healthcare that becomes much harder, and given in the US both the healthcare and those regulating it would be part of the Executive branch it would be asking one group to check itself.
That might be the socialist in me, but I much prefer trusting the government, over some faceless corporation who's only concern is, how much money they can make out of something.
See I'm the other way around. I trust companies to be predictable and stable in ways I don't expect of the Federal Government. And I have no problems with profits.
Reply
On top of that, thanks to our system, we don't depend on our employers for healthcare. So companies can't keep us under their control by their ability to give or take away healthcare.
If I quit a job, I still have the same healthcare that I did before. At no point do I have to worry that being out of a job, means that my family could lose their access to healthcare.
As for choice, you're forgetting that I did say semi-single payer. As a Belgian, I have the choice between joining several mutualities, all of whom offer their own incentives for people to join. (though honestly, most people join one based on their politics)
For example, I'm a member of the ABVV, which is the socialist mutualities, there's also the liberal, christian and independent mutualities. All of which are connected to their own political parties, and unions (more so in the past, than now)
If I don't like the way my mutuality handles things, I can always join one of the others. The more people join, the more funds they get from the government, so they're inclined to offer the best work possible to keep their funding.
I know what I can expect from my government. And yeah, Belgian bureaucracy can be horrible as well, but I'd still trust the government a million times more than I would trust some private company. Primarily because the government works for me (and every other Belgian), and they succeed when as many Belgians as possible, have the best possible lives.
In contrast to private companies who only care about making money, and would prefer not being accountable to anyone. (just look at how they're paying off the republicans in the US to get tax cuts for the rich, at the expense of the wellbeing of everyone else)
That's another difference between Belgium and the US. We have way more parties than you guys do. Parties with an actual chance of getting into the government that is. So since a vote for a smaller party isn't thrown away, like a third party vote is in the US, people here are more likely to vote for another party, if the one they voted for before, isn't doing the job they're supposed to do.
Reply
But I can change the company I use. Which is faster and more reliable than hoping enough other people also want to change politicians (and in the US the re-election rate normally sits at 80% or more so chances of changing them large scale isn't likely).
And when I said choice I was talking about you liking single payer. That is your choice. As is your choice to trust your government more. Your experiences are clearly better than mine have been. I'll take private over public 9 times out of 10. Other than more regulations I want government out of healthcare.
That's another difference between Belgium and the US. We have way more parties than you guys do. Parties with an actual chance of getting into the government that is.
I am fully in favor of more active parties but the problem is most of the third parties in the US don't really try. Locally to me we have a rather active libertarian party and they do get elected but we are in the minority in that.
Reply
I'm guessing that you're relatively young and free (so far) of any serious health issues that require ongoing care and/or medication. If not, please don't hesitate to set me straight-- but most people I've known who talk like you are in that category. Being faced with the harsh realities of desperately needing care that they can’t afford to pay for has a tendency to make people think about these things differently.
If I'm wrong, please do let me know.
Reply
Yes that is a problem, your answer is let the government run everything, My answer is have the government regulate private companies more.
If I'm wrong, please do let me know.
No you are right I have been lucky. My mother on the other hand has not been. And she has VA medical (government run healthcare for retired military) and I have seen her have to wait months for appointment, go years without a doctor, only a nurse practitioner that will see her when she can get appointments. Being told that she has to drive an hour north to the VA center because they will not let her go to a local ER after she fell and broke her arm (which they then failed to tell her was broken until a week later and this was just last month). I've seen her sent home by one doctor saying she was fine and later that same day my aunt drove her back to the VA center where she ended up staying for over a week because she almost died from kidney failure.
So as I said else where in this thread we've clearly had different experiences with our different governments. I do not trust mine to run healthcare.
Reply
Reply
"See I'm the other way around. I trust companies to be predictable and stable in ways I don't expect of the Federal Government. And I have no problems with profits."
Sorry, but "I trust companies" is an oxymoron afaic. To be quite honest, I don't "trust companies" to do shit, except make as much money as they can any way that they can. (Which, lbr, is what they exist for, after all.) What I have a problem with is some company making decisions about MY health and well-being based on nothing other than THEIR profit margins. Afaic, that is just plain fucked up.
Reply
Beyond that I will point out two things. I said 'I trust companies to be predictable and stable' I don't trust them full stop but I believe in five years they won't have pulled a full U-turn and changed all the rules for healthcare.
Because what if the ACA had been a single payer system?
What if the Republicans had a few more votes for their repel?
And the U.S. goes from full healthcare to no healthcare. See how that's a problem, because I do. I trust companies not to do that. I don't trust the government not to.
What I have a problem with is some company making decisions about MY health and well-being based on nothing other than THEIR profit margins.
So you'd rather it be the government making those decisions about your health based on budget deficit and debt ceiling? how is that any better?
Reply
Reply
How do I, as a working class person respond to a corporation pricing me out of my life-sustaining medicine? Especially if it's a medicine they have a market monopoly over? I can't vote out the CEO nor can I seek out cheaper, legal alternatives, and that CEO has no obligations to me because they don't need my vote. There is at least a level of direct and obvious accountability when the government runs it. I can at least vote out a corrupt politician pushing absurd health care laws or vote against harmful healthcare legislation at local levels.
Reply
You have the illusory belief in a choice and impact created by the notion of a free market that doesn't actually exist.
So I can't make a choice between different companies because last I checked I have five companies and over a dozen plans to pick from which sounds like more of a choice than the government being like here is your plan now shut up and be happy.
I can at least vote out a corrupt politician pushing absurd health care laws or vote against harmful healthcare legislation at local levels.
And you work to replace them with politician who regulate the market in positives ways you like, which is something I fully support.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment