"Who's gonna pay for Medicare for all?" is either stupid or disingenuous

I think you are right. Everyone should realize that the most inefficient and expensive way to do anything is via government. While there are many things we must do that way, it would seem that it should only be the choice when we have no other.

 

You very well might have been great at sales, but you aren't 400 billion a year great. You suggested taking 400 billion dollars you didn't create, and allocating it to your own purposes. There's little concern or thought to what that money is currently being used for, and how it effects the economy as a system. Money like that is typically just assumed to be ill gotten gains, or the product of greed to justify a Robin Hood fantasy of re-allocation. The theft of 400 billion dollars isn't just going to effect a few workers processing claims. We're not talking about pennies laying on the ground here. We're talking about massive changes that will not only effect the few million employed by the insurance sector, but it will effect everyone they do business with. It will effect everyone that generates new revenue by doing business with insurance companies. It will effect everyone they do business with. Health care isn't an isolated pond. A supposed ripple in health care can easy become a catastrophic wave somewhere else in the ocean that is the economy. It's not about singling people out. Quite the contrary, it's about having little idea whatsoever who and how people will be effected.

 

I don't see your point here.

I've heard nobody suggesting that we federalize drug and medical equipment production.

My interpretation of the question had to do with US drug companies charging Americans more than they charge people in other countries.

 

People in other countries do not have access to the drugs until a few years after they are released. And US citizens pay for the development costs of these drugs and medical equipment. BTW, the federal regulations regarding testing requirements for the release of new pharmaceuticals is in effect federalizing both the US.drug and medical equipment industries.

IMO everyone taking a drug should have to sign a release absolving the drug companies of any liability. Each of us has a unique physiology which will react differently to each and every drug. It is impossible for a drug company to test their products such that they can guarantee no adverse reaction in everyone who is prescribed the medications.

 

You keep saying the same things, but you don't answer when it's pointed out that the solution you want does not solve the problem.

- many can't work because ... they can't work! Also, many have incomes that are too low to afford our healthcare system. We have people making too little to buy food and housing, let alone healthcare. Your question of "why" doesn't solve the problem. Your choice of punishing these people by denying them healthcare doesn't solve the problem. We KNOW this because we've tried that route for DECADES!!

- today, other countries are doing a FAR better job of healthcare distribution while paying FAR less than we do, and they are getting very good results. Why does it make sense for us to ignore this MONUMENTAL improvement?

- there are MANY forms of "abuse". Just saying "abuse" doesn't answer anything.

- on the one hand, insurance carried by health care providers does water down the effect of liability law on policing individual providers. However, every country faces this issue of policing it's providers. So far, you haven't pointed to a working solution today, even though all first world countries have this same issue - including the majority where providers are not hired by the government (such as our own VA system does). Simply saying that going after doctors will make healthcare cheaper really isn't good enough. And, the higher rewards in the US tend to be more necessary when our social services are weaker.

 

Other nations ration healthcare. That’s disgusting.

 

It's true that our government spends money on fundamental research. But, they don't create and sell medications.

Drug companies are private enterprise. They aren't require to sell to Americans at a higher price. That's THEIR choice, and WE choose to pay!!

Our testing requirements are significant, but that has NOTHING to do with "federalization".

However, our testing requirements DO allow you to propose such craziness as signing away all liability!! Is there ANYTHING you won't hand over to drug companies?

 

The US rations healthcare by allowing cost to block or delay people from getting the healthcare they need. We ration based on wealth.

In this study, 30% of Americans said they don't get needed health care, because of the cost. This includes many who have insurance, but who can't afford copayments or who are reluctant to become susceptible to the uninsured costs that our system includes - such as hospitals choosing to use an "out of network" doctor or other facility, thus facing the patient with an unexpected bill for the full cost. In other countries, copayments are capped at a small percent (like 2%) of income.

From the following link: " An estimated 44 million Americans who have insurance are effectively underinsured because their out-of-pocket costs and deductibles are very high relative to their incomes."

Wait times in a number of other first world countries are no worse than are our own. In those countries that are worse, they spent more than they do (but less than we do) and reduce that time. Unlike here, it's a political choice that they can make.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/does-united-states-ration-health-care

Look how we fare vs. Netherlands. Ignoring what others have accomplished makes NO SENSE.

 

Of course it does. The federal government exerts control via regulations.

The idea of drug liability is absurd. Most drugs are poisons which have benefits for most but not all people in small doses.

 

The amount and quality of healthcare in the US is far superior to any other nation. The reforms necessary are buying across state lines, Management of Medicaid to the states, tort reform, and associations to take care of the pre existing conditions issue.

Thanks Obama for the ridiculous bronze and silver plans.

 

Long and lethal, bullshit. are they waiting periods for non-emergency longer than the US, yes, but not for procedures that are life threatening. But the reason for that is that they pay 1/2 of what we do and not the system of providing care. Your mixing apples and oranges. if they spent a little more those wait times would be reduced. they are still covering all the people, which we do not and they are doing it at 1/2 the cost. So if they spent 6000 and not 5000 a year, those weight lines would dissapear and they would still be 40% cheaper. Never mind that the drugs are so much cheaper.

 

Where do you get this? This is batshit. Your saying that a company is going to close off 90% of the market until US sales pay them back for R&D. The only delay is that the host countries just don't take the US drug trials on face value and perform thier own. A company only has the patent for a number of years, Then generics can take over. they are not going to forgo all that money in the other 90% of the world while the clocks tick before generics come out.

Remember the rest of the world does not honor US patents that are tweaked to gain another 8 years of protection, like we allow them. Until then, you sell for what they tell you you can sell it for. People don't go to Canada for generic drugs, they go to Canada for patent exclusive drugs.

 

Well why should I support these people with my healthcare dollars? they are not providing heath care but just processing claims. I never thought I would hear people on the right speaking out in favor of inefficiencies of services to keep jobs! I rather spend 400 bill on subsidizing car workers and steel workers and teachers that insurers.

 

Why do Canadian politicians go to the US for healthcare ?? Why are there so fewer per capita MRI and CT machines ??

The Candian government spends the healthcare money. US consumers spend our healthcare money. All the cost estimates for Medicare for all are based on continuing the government spending on health care at the same rate that US consumers currently spend.

The drugs are cheaper because the Canadians do not have immediate access to them. US consumers are paying the development costs. You think that is going to change with Medicare for All ??

 

My statements are completely true.

 

There is no greater inhumanity than to allow suffering where it could be remedied.

 

OIK- let's slow down and talk on that. You are going to have to set aside your prejudices and examine what I say- with the objective of trying understand the point of view rather than accumulating a list of reasons to attack it. IF you can do that, you may not agree- but you would probably understand.

First of all- you and I see the problem differently in that you think that anybody's problem is everybody's problem. You seem to think it important that nobody "lose", no matter how determined they are to do so.
So- in order for a plan to "work", by your definition- those who will must always pick up the slack for those who can't or won't, and I think you fail to see any difference. That concept burdens those who will with the responsibility of those who won't- And that is where I draw the line.

I have no problem helping a person who is doing their best to help themselves, but circumstances prevent them doing what they usually would. That is traditional in our society. It's a fundamental value to me; I've done it all my life. A farmer is injured- and his neighbors show up spontaneously to plant or harvest or rebuild his burned barn. If those helping were the person down- they know the one they help would do exactly the same for them if they were down. This is what I call a hand-up, people working together. Part of the strength of a sound society. Nature approves of that and species who use it invariably benefit from it.

On the other hand are those who won't help themselves. Somewhere along the line they failed to accept responsibility for managing their own lives- and will spend their entire lives living off the backs of others. Of course, they "can't" do for themselves. They have to present whatever facade is needed to gain the sympathy and support of the do-gooders in the world, who think as you do- and they come to believe it. Such people see that as a way of life, and they resent you for not giving them more, and for failing to respect them as equals to those who stand on their own. They feel that because THEY know it's true, whether anyone else shows it or not. Thus- there is no self-esteem or pride, just a level of resentment. They are not self-regulated by seeing others as equal, but rather themselves as entitled to be carried. These are the people asking for hand-outs. Giving you the bill for their own lives- and because you accept it, you prove that you agree and you owe it. There is no gratitude, no appreciation, no feeling that they should appreciate the act of generosity they received and pay it forward to help others. Instead there is a feeling that you, who owes them- all of society- pay your bills short of what is due and late, and you victimize them in the process. No good deed goes unpunished with these people. When you help them- in any way- you enable that mindset, you keep them as disgruntled and dependent people, unable to walk upright and feel any genuine pride in themselves. That is a damn poor place for any human to be- and unlike you, I refuse to help them stay there.

Now obviously an honorable man must be able to recognize the difference in these two types of situations, so that help given actually helps rather than subsidize dependence. To me, that is a yes/no decision that I make with the standards I respect and live by. I think you see this as a big grey area with a rubber-band line; everything negotiable- which allows a great deal of abuse of the generosity of society overall, and that sours people on helping anybody when they see their help was wasted.

Will some you refuse to help die? Yes. Will some you help over and over die, because they simply won't change and become responsible? Yes. 80,000 drug overdose deaths every year attest to that.

Now I'm a serious follower of nature- I found after a very long search that mother nature writes the real rules, the principles that make all life work well. Every species on earth respects them- except humans, who think we are too smart to do that. Nature gives each and every creature everything it needs to be successful. Whether or not they are willing to use it is up to the individual creature- and most do... and learn to do so well and quickly, because they have no alternative. Humans on the other hand tell themselves that life if unfair, and spend a great deal of time looking for the easy path that does not require they follow the rules.

Thus, despite our intelligence, our creativity, all the systems we have built in the efforts to "better" ourselves- we are the only species in the history of the world who leaves a trail of death and destruction everywhere we go. As a society, we cannot manage ourselves successfully. We poison the earth, consume all the natural resources, kill each other without cause, drug or drink ourselves into a stupor or death because we can't find value in ourselves; and we can't accept the fundamental elements of responsibility for our own life. Probably our greatest skill- is dodging responsibility and the consequences of doing so.

Most likely we will be the first species ever to be totally responsible for our own extinction. We are the ONLY species that refuses to live by the principles nature lays down. We have the power to use them, enhance them to do wonderful things and have the kind of society that does care for everyone- but the large majority of us steadfastly refuse to embrace the basic principles that would make that possible.

Consider a sort of "model" which illustrates this:

IF you build a society or a nation- it's not unlike building a brick house. IF you want it to be strong and enduring, you must use sound bricks and sound mortar. Anything else, and it collapses.

The people are the BRICKS of our society. The relationship between the people is the MORTAR that binds them together and gives the overall structure the strength to not only endure- but to be kind and generous to the entire society.

Bricks.... are but lumps of clay, that have been matured and strengthened by the process of firing. In that matured state, they are independently strong and can stand alone. When the bricks are joined with good mortar- the structure is builds is even stronger than the components. All the bricks benefit from being part of it.

If the bricks are sound but the mortar is weak- the house, or society it builds- will be weak, and will not endure. Both sound bricks and good mortar are required, or neither can work.

If you build your house with lumps of clay- even a small percentage of them- you have failed, done harm to all the components of the house, destroyed the benefits of the good bricks by diluting the structure with mud- and the house will come down.

This doesn't mean the lumps of clay mud have no value- it means that until they are willing to face the fire and strengthen themselves, they can't become useful building blocks for the house. That isn't something to be adjusted by sympathy or favoritism, it is hard fact that no wise person can ignore.

You think that shouldn't matter, that the "lumps of clay" shouldn't have to endure the challenge of maturing- just invite them in anyway.
I think that we must leaves that choice up to them, with conditions. IF they want the benefits of the house, they must rise to the challenge- no matter how hard it is. No matter how long they have postponed it, nor what they have done to themselves along the way. I will not stand in their way of that- neither will I do it for them.
I know that if I try in some way, I have help the house fail, and the person fail as well.

You want to help people avoid consequence. I want them to grow from it. Those who avoid it today will be facing it again and again in the future. Those who grow from it change- they strengthen, and they learn.

There is an old saying- "That which does not kill us makes us stronger." It's true. Experiences and consequences make us both stronger and wiser.

But, if you are always sheltered from the consequences of your own choices- it doesn't apply at all.

 

Wow, you totally missed it.

The issue is that US customers pay more than those outside the US for the same drugs creted by US drug companies.

That shows that competition isn't working.

And, none of that has anything to do with US tax funded medical research - research that has led the way in medical advances throughout the entire world.

 

Foreign customers do not have immediate access to the newest drugs. They wait years. US consumers pay the development costs.

If you want to reduce prices reduce the millions of dollars required for the FDA approval or require US drug companies to price the same globally.

 

You are.

 

No, it's you who is not listening.

You would allow people to die if their job doesn't pay enough to buy food and housing, to pay for life giving healthcare that has been carefully tuned for the wealthy, if they get in a position where they have to be rescued, etc.

I do NOT agree with that concept. Healthcare is more than a commodity to be distributed for profit.

That's an issue of morality, not merely economics. EVERY other first world country agrees with that. And, they pull it off while expending LESS on healthcare!!

So, you aren't even getting richer because of the suffering you believe is only right to impose on others!

Your's just not a rational position - let alone being an immoral position.

Bull. Your measure throughout this thread is that people are on their own with NO help.

If someone is dying of cacer and needs chemo they can't buy, then your position is they brought it on themselves, so screw them.

And, I don't need to hear your nonsense about how other people should live their lives or how your plan of kicking people when they are down will improve people's lives. Your assumptions are just plain ignorant of the real world situations in which people in our society can find themselves in our highly competitive economic system. Capitalism itself creates losers. Sickness creates losers. Mental and physical capacity creates losers. Age creates losers. Our bankruptcy data shows that even those creating new businesses bomb out, and if hit with medcal expenses before recouperating can be in serious trouble.

I like capitalism, but it absolutely does NOT solve every problem. And, some problems need to be solved regardless of whether capitalism can accomplish a solution. This is not a rare situation.

Having people in our society be sick is NOT an advantage. And, other countries are solving that for LESS than we pay.

There is NO EXCUSE - not cost, not outcomes, not forcing people to be "better", not issues of morality.

 

Cite please.

You just make these claims with nothing behind them.

Then, when I cite evidence to the contrary you just make some other crazy claim.

Why should anyone believe you?

 

So why is it right for you to force your morality on others, but wrong for others to do the same to you?

 

That defies the definition of rationing. Really, if you are going to talk about economics, you should understand the terms and not twist them to suit your argument.

Ra·tion

1. allow each person to have only a fixed amount of (a particular commodity).
   "shoes were rationed from 1943"

Who is doing the rationing? No one. You way "we ration baed on wealth" but who is "we" and how do they "allow" people to purchase based on wealth?

 

Is it ok to make others suffer in order to fix the suffering that you see? Does your suffering allow you to hold your neighbor, or a complete stranger, hostage until he coughs up the resources necessary to end your perceived suffering?