Healthcare! A much needed reform in the US.

[The Alma Mater]

The vast majority of problems stems from the Byzantine administration, legislation, and regulation of the US health care system. Streamline that and put some minimal pricing controls so pharma can’t mark up hundreds of percent, and you’d resolve much of the cost pushed onto middle/low income consumers.

But that's socialist and goes against the capitalist free market ideal.

[Flarbinia]

US should copy Taiwan's single payers heathcare system. Read - https://www.vox.com/health-care/2020/1/ ... -insurance

No. Taiwan is smaller than the US, so it's system won't work.

Out of curiosity, which of the following bullshit artists do you consume?
Fox News
OANN
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder
Tim Pool
Dave Rubin
PragerU
TPUSA

I think you got them confused with CNN, Vox, and the Young Turks. Then again, you view anyone whose politics are right of Karl Marx as a Nazi or a Redneck, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

[Duvniask]

US should copy Taiwan's single payers heathcare system. Read - https://www.vox.com/health-care/2020/1/ ... -insurance

No. Taiwan is smaller than the US, so it's system won't work.

Out of curiosity, which of the following bullshit artists do you consume?
Fox News
OANN
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder
Tim Pool
Dave Rubin
PragerU
TPUSA

I think you got them confused with CNN, Vox, and the Young Turks. Then again, you view anyone whose politics are right of Karl Marx as a Nazi or a Redneck, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

What does size have to do with it? A greater pool of resources implies greater ability to transfer them to where they are needed at any given moment. It is the same logic that belies insurance in the first place: many individuals pay into a collective fund, yet at any given moment only few of them are going to be hit by disaster; this however means that there is more than enough money to recompense those who really do need it. From what I learned in microeconomics class, this advantage generally only increases with the number of individuals involved.

[Celestial Provinces]

US should copy Taiwan's single payers heathcare system. Read - https://www.vox.com/health-care/2020/1/ ... -insurance

No. Taiwan is smaller than the US, so it's system won't work.

Out of curiosity, which of the following bullshit artists do you consume?
Fox News
OANN
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder
Tim Pool
Dave Rubin
PragerU
TPUSA

I think you got them confused with CNN, Vox, and the Young Turks. Then again, you view anyone whose politics are right of Karl Marx as a Nazi or a Redneck, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

Nice

[Celritannia]

US should copy Taiwan's single payers heathcare system. Read - https://www.vox.com/health-care/2020/1/ ... -insurance

No. Taiwan is smaller than the US, so it's system won't work.

Out of curiosity, which of the following bullshit artists do you consume?
Fox News
OANN
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder
Tim Pool
Dave Rubin
PragerU
TPUSA

I think you got them confused with CNN, Vox, and the Young Turks. Then again, you view anyone whose politics are right of Karl Marx as a Nazi or a Redneck, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

And you think any country that uses a Universal Healthcare System is communist. Please tell me how the UK is communist.

[Flarbinia]

What does size have to do with it? A greater pool of resources implies greater ability to transfer them to where they are needed at any given moment. It is the same logic that belies insurance in the first place: many individuals pay into a collective fund, yet at any given moment only few of them are going to be hit by disaster; this however means that there is more than enough money to recompense those who really do need it. From what I learned in microeconomics class, this advantage generally only increases with the number of individuals involved.

Logistics. The longer the distance you have to cover, the harder it is to supply people.

[Celritannia]

What does size have to do with it? A greater pool of resources implies greater ability to transfer them to where they are needed at any given moment. It is the same logic that belies insurance in the first place: many individuals pay into a collective fund, yet at any given moment only few of them are going to be hit by disaster; this however means that there is more than enough money to recompense those who really do need it. From what I learned in microeconomics class, this advantage generally only increases with the number of individuals involved.

Logistics. The longer the distance you have to cover, the harder it is to supply people.

Does not stop a system or service from being universally accessible.

[Alternamerica]

What does size have to do with it? A greater pool of resources implies greater ability to transfer them to where they are needed at any given moment. It is the same logic that belies insurance in the first place: many individuals pay into a collective fund, yet at any given moment only few of them are going to be hit by disaster; this however means that there is more than enough money to recompense those who really do need it. From what I learned in microeconomics class, this advantage generally only increases with the number of individuals involved.

Logistics. The longer the distance you have to cover, the harder it is to supply people.

Doesn't stop a country as large as Canada or as populated as Japan from providing the bare minimum

[Achidyemay]

Logistics. The longer the distance you have to cover, the harder it is to supply people.

Doesn't stop a country as large as Canada or as populated as Japan from providing the bare minimum

Do they ever provide more than the bare minimum?

In many of these countries, their service is not as good as upper end American medicine. For the well-ensured and well-healed of America (and those elsewhere in the world), being able to shop around for doctors, hospitals, and cures gives them a huge advantage over people in countries where the quality of care is predetermined by the budget set by their politicians. A budget that is usually higher in these countries than it would be if they payed for their own defense or infrastructure, instead of having America or China or the IMF do it.

But these policies aren't put in place to benefit the wealthy, they're put in place to benefit the common man. In America, insurance is typically provided by the employer (a way for companies to skirt maximum wage laws back in war time), but there is a public option. The medical industry in America is the most heavily regulated marketplace out there, and the public option doesn't help things. The public option has a list of different ways that it can get out of reimbursing hospitals for their service, and private companies have gleefully signed on to these things. Private and Public Insurers also have agreements with hospitals that they will only pay so much for a surgery. All this red tape has led to a bloated administrative staff that drives costs up more and by the end of the day hospitals are at a loss for profits. To remain afloat they will engage in some kind of scummy practices: double charging, overcharging, etc. You can see this by requesting a line-by-line (which will usually by itself drop the price) or in the OP of this topic, where Celrit talks about the $4000 ambulance ride, it shouldn't cost that much and it doesn't, they charged that, but what the insurance company actually paid was much less (even if you had to put the full $1000 deposit down).

America could have high quality, affordable care. But instead of investing in better facilities or more doctors, hospitals are forced to invest in administrative staff and forced to deal with insurance companies. We can see this in elective surgeries untouched by the insurance industry: LASIK and plastic surgeries. Perfectly affordable with a payment plan (though I believe there is a space in any healthcare system for charity), high quality, constantly improving.

[Celritannia]

Doesn't stop a country as large as Canada or as populated as Japan from providing the bare minimum

Do they ever provide more than the bare minimum?

In many of these countries, their service is not as good as upper end American medicine. For the well-ensured and well-healed of America (and those elsewhere in the world), being able to shop around for doctors, hospitals, and cures gives them a huge advantage over people in countries where the quality of care is predetermined by the budget set by their politicians. A budget that is usually higher in these countries than it would be if they payed for their own defense of infrastructure, instead of having America or China or the IMF do it.

But these policies aren't put in place to benefit the wealthy, they're put in place to benefit the common man. In America, insurance is typically provided by the employer (a way for companies to skirt maximum wage laws back in war time), but there is a public option. The medical industry in America is the most heavily regulated marketplace out there, and the public option doesn't help things. The public option has a list of different ways that it can get out of reimbursing hospitals for their service, and private companies have gleefully signed on to these things. Private and Public Insurers also have agreements with hospitals that they will only pay so much for a surgery. All this red tape has led to a bloated administrative staff that drives costs up more and by the end of the day hospitals are at a loss for profits. To remain afloat they will engage in some kind of scummy practices: double charging, overcharging, etc. You can see this by requesting a line-by-line (which will usually by itself drop the price) or in the OP of this topic, where Celrit talks about the $4000 ambulance ride, it shouldn't cost that much and it doesn't, they charged that, but what the insurance company actually payed was much less (even if you had to put the full $1000 deposit down).

America could have high quality, affordable care. But instead of investing in better facilities or more doctors, hospitals are forced to invest in administrative staff and forced to deal with insurance companies. We can see this in elective surgeries untouched by the insurance industry: LASIK and plastic surgeries. Perfectly affordable with a payment plan (though I believe there is a space in any healthcare system for charity), high quality, constantly improving.

Firstly, your assumption is incorrect. I have provided evidence that shows countries with universal healthcare is far superior to the US healthcare system, booth in price and quality of care.

Secondly, your point about the military has nothing to do with why these countries have a UHS.

Thirdly, if these policies did benefit the common man, why are millions still uninsured and have to chose between food and medicine?

Fourthly, maybe I was a little overzealous in saying ambulance costs were $4,000, however this does not change the fact the majority of people cannot afford to use an ambulance, and prefer to drive themselves to the hospital.

Fifth and finally, this point contradicts your first point.
But cutting admin fees can only happen if the government regulates the costs of insurance, which would then become a Universal Healthcare System, probably the more expensive kind of UHS, but a UHS nonetheless. But charity based healthcare does not reach everyone, nor do people always put money into it.
A Japanese or German Model of UHS is the most logical for the US. IT keeps the idea of choosing ones insurance company or through a job, the Government regulates how much these companies can charge, and subsidise those who cannot afford insurance.

[Punished UMN]

Germany's hybrid model seems to perform quite well.

[Kowani]

US should copy Taiwan's single payers heathcare system. Read - https://www.vox.com/health-care/2020/1/ ... -insurance

No. Taiwan is smaller than the US, so it's system won't work.

Out of curiosity, which of the following bullshit artists do you consume?
Fox News
OANN
Ben Shapiro
Steven Crowder
Tim Pool
Dave Rubin
PragerU
TPUSA

I think you got them confused with CNN, Vox, and the Young Turks. Then again, you view anyone whose politics are right of Karl Marx as a Nazi or a Redneck, so I really shouldn't be surprised.

...The fuck? Nobody on the left likes CNN, because corporate media is trash. I don't watch TYT.
That said, the community with which I interact most was the old Right-Wing Discussion Thread, which is emphatically right wing and not full of Nazis. Sit the fuck down.

[Celritannia]

Germany's hybrid model seems to perform quite well.

It's really the only system that would work in the US.
A single-payer system, especially a taxed based one, may not be easy to implement.

[Chan Island]

Germany's hybrid model seems to perform quite well.

It's really the only system that would work in the US.
A single-payer system, especially a taxed based one, may not be easy to implement.

At the end of the day though, it's one of those cases where literally every version of universal healthcare on the table is better than the system the US currently uses. Literally just copy any country's system, and voila, no more millions of people forced to choose between food or medicine.

[The Reformed American Republic]

It's really the only system that would work in the US.
A single-payer system, especially a taxed based one, may not be easy to implement.

At the end of the day though, it's one of those cases where literally every version of universal healthcare on the table is better than the system the US currently uses. Literally just copy any country's system, and voila, no more millions of people forced to choose between food or medicine.

Not wanting people to die because of lack of ability to pay? What are you? A communist?

[Solvokina]

The problem with implementing Universal Healthcare to the USA is that they are screwed from the start due to privatisation everywhere

[Washington Resistance Army]

As an avowed and open communist I can confirm Flarbinia does not know what communism or socialism is.

Communism and Socialism are one and the same: the seizure of wealth and power in the name of the people. Universal Healthcare is inherently Socialist because it will increase the taxes that the Middle Class will have to pay, which is basically punishing them for the sin of somebody else not being able to afford insurance. Look at Venezuela. They placed a Socialist in charge of their country and now people are lining up to acquire bottled water because their leader's policies caused its economy to tank. Nobody wants to live there. In fact, people from Latin American countries are fleeing to America because things have gone that bad under Socialism. If not wanting America to go down the road to becoming Venezuela 2.0 makes me a Corporate shill, then better dead than red.

It may come as a surprise to you but not it's not communism or socialism when the government does stuff. If you want to profess anti-communism as an ideological tenet you should actually learn what it is, you're just making things harder for the rest of us.

[New haven america]

Doesn't stop a country as large as Canada or as populated as Japan from providing the bare minimum

Do they ever provide more than the bare minimum?

In many of these countries, their service is not as good as upper end American medicine. For the well-ensured and well-healed of America (and those elsewhere in the world), being able to shop around for doctors, hospitals, and cures gives them a huge advantage over people in countries where the quality of care is predetermined by the budget set by their politicians. A budget that is usually higher in these countries than it would be if they payed for their own defense or infrastructure, instead of having America or China or the IMF do it.

But these policies aren't put in place to benefit the wealthy, they're put in place to benefit the common man. In America, insurance is typically provided by the employer (a way for companies to skirt maximum wage laws back in war time), but there is a public option. The medical industry in America is the most heavily regulated marketplace out there, and the public option doesn't help things. The public option has a list of different ways that it can get out of reimbursing hospitals for their service, and private companies have gleefully signed on to these things. Private and Public Insurers also have agreements with hospitals that they will only pay so much for a surgery. All this red tape has led to a bloated administrative staff that drives costs up more and by the end of the day hospitals are at a loss for profits. To remain afloat they will engage in some kind of scummy practices: double charging, overcharging, etc. You can see this by requesting a line-by-line (which will usually by itself drop the price) or in the OP of this topic, where Celrit talks about the $4000 ambulance ride, it shouldn't cost that much and it doesn't, they charged that, but what the insurance company actually paid was much less (even if you had to put the full $1000 deposit down).

America could have high quality, affordable care. But instead of investing in better facilities or more doctors, hospitals are forced to invest in administrative staff and forced to deal with insurance companies. We can see this in elective surgeries untouched by the insurance industry: LASIK and plastic surgeries. Perfectly affordable with a payment plan (though I believe there is a space in any healthcare system for charity), high quality, constantly improving.

Yes.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Communism and Socialism are one and the same: the seizure of wealth and power in the name of the people. Universal Healthcare is inherently Socialist because it will increase the taxes that the Middle Class will have to pay, which is basically punishing them for the sin of somebody else not being able to afford insurance. Look at Venezuela. They placed a Socialist in charge of their country and now people are lining up to acquire bottled water because their leader's policies caused its economy to tank. Nobody wants to live there. In fact, people from Latin American countries are fleeing to America because things have gone that bad under Socialism. If not wanting America to go down the road to becoming Venezuela 2.0 makes me a Corporate shill, then better dead than red.

It may come as a surprise to you but not it's not communism or socialism when the government does stuff. If you want to profess anti-communism as an ideological tenet you should actually learn what it is, you're just making things harder for the rest of us.

He knows, he just don't care.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Why is a thread about reforming US healthcare turning into a thread about class consciousness and workers' rights?

Some people believe in the idiotic belief that government doing anything to help the people is socialism which is the same as communism.

Then people explain why that is wrong, leading to discussions about communism.

[Major-Tom]

The problem with implementing Universal Healthcare to the USA is that they are screwed from the start due to privatisation everywhere

....So let's fix it?

[Alternamerica]

Doesn't stop a country as large as Canada or as populated as Japan from providing the bare minimum

Do they ever provide more than the bare minimum?

In many of these countries, their service is not as good as upper end American medicine. For the well-ensured and well-healed of America (and those elsewhere in the world), being able to shop around for doctors, hospitals, and cures gives them a huge advantage over people in countries where the quality of care is predetermined by the budget set by their politicians. A budget that is usually higher in these countries than it would be if they payed for their own defense or infrastructure, instead of having America or China or the IMF do it.

But these policies aren't put in place to benefit the wealthy, they're put in place to benefit the common man. In America, insurance is typically provided by the employer (a way for companies to skirt maximum wage laws back in war time), but there is a public option. The medical industry in America is the most heavily regulated marketplace out there, and the public option doesn't help things. The public option has a list of different ways that it can get out of reimbursing hospitals for their service, and private companies have gleefully signed on to these things. Private and Public Insurers also have agreements with hospitals that they will only pay so much for a surgery. All this red tape has led to a bloated administrative staff that drives costs up more and by the end of the day hospitals are at a loss for profits. To remain afloat they will engage in some kind of scummy practices: double charging, overcharging, etc. You can see this by requesting a line-by-line (which will usually by itself drop the price) or in the OP of this topic, where Celrit talks about the $4000 ambulance ride, it shouldn't cost that much and it doesn't, they charged that, but what the insurance company actually paid was much less (even if you had to put the full $1000 deposit down).

America could have high quality, affordable care. But instead of investing in better facilities or more doctors, hospitals are forced to invest in administrative staff and forced to deal with insurance companies. We can see this in elective surgeries untouched by the insurance industry: LASIK and plastic surgeries. Perfectly affordable with a payment plan (though I believe there is a space in any healthcare system for charity), high quality, constantly improving.

Yes. For Canada's case, it's a Single Payer system. For Japan's, it's basically the "Public Option" aka what Obamacare was supposed to be before 'Moderate' Democrats and Republicans destroyed that hope of a government funded insurance competing against private insurers. And, like Hong Kong, Japan, Germany, or Australia, private and public hospitals provide at least the minimum care for citizens to not die.

We're also one of the lowest life expectancy of any developed countries and the idea of people having to ration life saving medicine, and later dying for doing so, isn't a heart-warming story in other developed and some developing countries with public healthcare (Poland, China, Russia)

[Solvokina]

The problem with implementing Universal Healthcare to the USA is that they are screwed from the start due to privatisation everywhere

....So let's fix it?

Its gonna be a hard process, most politicians in the USA either ditch the idea, make it worse, privatise it more or ignore it

[The Alma Mater]

The problem with implementing Universal Healthcare to the USA is that they are screwed from the start due to privatisation everywhere

....So let's fix it?

That requires politicians to admit that the claim that the free market makes things better and cheaper is bullshit and always has been.

They won't.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

For the well-ensured and well-healed of America

Nice pun! But it's "heeled".

When shoes were expensive people would wear them until the heel wore down. "Able to afford new shoes" = "well-heeled".
You could also get new heels and soles put on an old pair of shoes (at your local cobbler), reinforcing this idea that "well-heeled" people have money to spend now, but aren't necessarily rich.

And "ensured" is a word, but not the same word as "insured". Nothing wrong with your post, just a bit long for me now.