Instead of Trumpcare, should we go to single payer healthcare?

[Jaskalas]

What sort of twisted logical has lead to that being the case for many in this country is something I cannot fully resolve.

Because too few are honestly fighting for the real solution. You don't wait for the public's approval for some mysterious new deal they think is impossible or not supported. No, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming. It takes leadership with a clear conviction and a strong message to inspire voters to follow. You show them the money. You build a campaign... you expand it to a movement. Not just one candidate or election but a pledge from a party that this is our mission. You rally the voters behind hope for change. Si Se Puede!

How will we ever improve healthcare in the is country if we kill off the first effort to change our trajectory.

Because nothing has changed. People still do not have healthcare they can afford. They still want it. It is our mission then, to give the people a path forward that includes voting in proponents for change. Yes, they will be angry and feel burned from the ACA and rising costs. Nothing we can do but eat the damage that caused to people's expectations. But Trump and company have, or will continue, to scare them straight.

Anti Trump backlash is going to be huge... so long as people have a positive reason to go vote.

 

[postmortemIA]

The problem, like in Canada / England and other places, is sometimes you can not get the health care or treatment right away. One way to save everybody money is to eliminate the ability to sue doctors and hospitals for even very minor mistakes. Suits should only be allowed when a serious mistake was made or severe injury is caused by a doctors mistake.

They still have similar life expectancy, if not better. Everybody knows this: return on investment (cost of the health care) is pretty bad in US.

I would not only go single payer, I would go beyond: find a way to school Dr's and RN's bit cheaper so that public health system could run cheaper... just like in rest of the world.

 

[HomerJS]

Of course there should be single payer. After all, the complete geniuses who run the post office and the VA have proven they have what it takes to run healthcare for 340 million people.

That's funny your boy Trump seems to think it is better then our system
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqKoSqzWxs8

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'm told healthcare is a right. Therefore it should free, no one need pay anything.

Freedom isn't free.

Rights we hold dear have cost millions of lives in our history.

Nothing's free.

Now, I read your post as a sarcastic tone, that's my suspicion.

I do believe that healthcare is a right, and it's not free.

My concessions are: it could be cheaper than what I'm paying now (and likely would if politicians stopped being corporate lackeys), and people in our country could all be covered.

 

[crashtech]

Freedom isn't free.

Rights we hold dear have cost millions of lives in our history.

Nothing's free.

Now, I read your post as a sarcastic tone, that's my suspicion.

I do believe that healthcare is a right, and it's not free.

My concessions are: it could be cheaper than what I'm paying now (and likely would if politicians stopped being corporate lackeys), and people in our country could all be covered.

It was sarcastic. I ought not have posted it, because I'm not prepared to debate it. The language of the debate has moved too far away from anything I consider rational for me to say anything that would have meaning to those whose minds have gone to places I won't follow. My definition of what a "right" is remains traditional, and does not include things like healthcare, transportation, housing, and food, even though those things are critical needs.

If we decide single-payer is the way (which is the end game, I have no doubt) it won't be because it is a "right" enshrined in our newly edited founding documents, but simply that it's something that we have collectively decided to do for the good of all citizens.

The unfortunate part from my view is that most individual's expectations regarding level of care far exceed their willingness to invest, therefore it's always some mysterious other paying for it, like rich guys, corporations, or perhaps even the government magically printing money.

I think healthcare as we know it will have to go through some radical changes to become something that can be afforded collectively.

 

[ch33zw1z]

What's traditional right to you?

Whatever you reply, there's a cost. I'm still curious what your opinion is.

We accept costs on a daily basis, with little thought to what the costs are.

For instance, it was a holiday weekend. This means increase in alcohol consumption, which means increase in DUI, which means increase in emergency services availability and activity. As a society we accept this, as a tax payer those costs are a concern for me. Just an example, don't read into it much other than that. We accept costs in our society often.

Healthcare is a concern for me. I'm more likely to care about my fellow man than corporate profits.

There's no mysterious other in a single payer, it's everyone.

 

[Roflmouth]

They still have similar life expectancy, if not better. Everybody knows this: return on investment (cost of the health care) is pretty bad in US.

I would not only go single payer, I would go beyond: find a way to school Dr's and RN's bit cheaper so that public health system could run cheaper... just like in rest of the world.

And then magical fairies will burst from your chest to spread goodwill and cheer to all the good boys and girls.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Another brilliant post from Loltrollface.

 

[hal2kilo]

They still have similar life expectancy, if not better. Everybody knows this: return on investment (cost of the health care) is pretty bad in US.

I would not only go single payer, I would go beyond: find a way to school Dr's and RN's bit cheaper so that public health system could run cheaper... just like in rest of the world.

Tell that to the American Medical Association.

 

[crashtech]

What's traditional right to you?...

The Bill of Rights

Anything else we can call a "good," "collective good," or even "entitlement," but benefits are not the same as rights. To say otherwise bastardizes the language.

 

[ch33zw1z]

So to you, anything after the 10th amendment is a bastardized version?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes to mind, as certain inalienable rights (aka unalienable)

We don't live in the past, staying there mentally and calling the rest just benefits seems foolish.

Much has changed since that was written, including the occurrence of centralized banking, the federal reserved, the rise and current descend of a middle class, etc...

So please, feel free to elaborate why living in the past is a good idea.

 

[crashtech]

So to you, anything after the 10th amendment is a bastardized version?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness comes to mind, as certain inalienable rights (aka unalienable)

We don't live in the past, staying there mentally and calling the rest just benefits seems foolish.

Much has changed since that was written, including the occurrence of centralized banking, the federal reserved, the rise and current descend of a middle class, etc...

So please, feel free to elaborate why living in the past is a good idea.

I utterly reject the notion that anything I am saying has to do with living in the past. It has to do with how we use language, and the framing of important debates.

If we want to collectively establish a benefit or entitlement that is administered by the government, that's well and good. But to falsely characterize such a benefit as a right is to hijack the narrative in a way that is not acceptable. Obviously you have accepted this new narrative, hook, line and sinker. That's the point of such mangling of the language, to use as a rhetorical tool to win converts and as a bludgeon with which to beat your opponents. I have to admit, it's effective. Another example of this would be the underhanded way reductions in the rate of growth can be falsely characterized as budget cuts.

If a group to which you belong thinks so strongly that such collective benefits as healthcare are actually rights, let them call a convention and enshrine them in the Constitution. There is an amendment process in place to do just that. But I don't think such an effort could ever prevail, because the truth is that entitlements just aren't rights, it's just convenient to call them that if you want to win arguments.

By the way, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and are, in my view, self-evident rights that are clarified in the Constitution.

 

[ch33zw1z]

It's not a narrative that I gobble down. I've felt this way since I was a child, it's always stuck with me.

Healthcare is available, to deny someone that healthcare based on social status or money is appalling.

You're telling me that it needs an amendment, but you don't consider all the amendments rights anyways. I seriously hope someone leads the way and pushes it as such. I agree it won't prevail, our country is all sorts of stupid.

You go ahead and utterly reject the notion of living in the past. Good, the future is waiting for USA to join other first world nations in controlling a fucked up industry, and putting health of it's citizens at the forefront of decisions, sooner the better.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's not a narrative that I gobble down. I've felt this way since I was a child, it's always stuck with me.

Healthcare is available, to deny someone that healthcare based on social status or money is appalling.

You're telling me that it needs an amendment, but you don't consider all the amendments rights anyways. I seriously hope someone leads the way and pushes it as such. I agree it won't prevail, our country is all sorts of stupid.

You go ahead and utterly reject the notion of living in the past. Good, the future is waiting for USA to join other first world nations in controlling a fucked up industry, and putting health of it's citizens at the forefront of decisions, sooner the better.

Well, yeh, but Rich Republicans crave tax cuts & their base is ignorant enough to sacrifice the health of fellow citizens & likely themselves to provide those tax cuts. Their principles are completely warped, and they sure as Hell can't go against their principles.

I'm reminded of Ben Franklin & Thomas Paine-

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/w...s-paine-and-ben-franklin-you-didnt-build-that

 

[crashtech]

It's not a narrative that I gobble down. I've felt this way since I was a child, it's always stuck with me.

Healthcare is available, to deny someone that healthcare based on social status or money is appalling.

You're telling me that it needs an amendment, but you don't consider all the amendments rights anyways. I seriously hope someone leads the way and pushes it as such. I agree it won't prevail, our country is all sorts of stupid.

You go ahead and utterly reject the notion of living in the past. Good, the future is waiting for USA to join other first world nations in controlling a fucked up industry, and putting health of it's citizens at the forefront of decisions, sooner the better.

I agree that healthcare is extremely important. But that doesn't make it a right, similarly, access to the Interstate isn't a right. It's an important benefit that we've collectively implemented for the common good. It may be past time to do the same with healthcare, but big changes are needed to make truly affordable. It's an exceptionally difficult problem.