Would the US be better off replacing Obamacare with some form of universal healthcare?

[cytg111]

I agree with those who might argue that a regulated health care market that addresses

- Isnt the hole problem in the concept of "health care market" though? Is healthcare something you want a market for? I am thinking bigpharama with an incentive to maintain and not to cure.
The second your healthcare company is listed, have a board of directors, the companys number one goal is to turn a profit and not to treat and cure human beings.
I am thinking this is why your healthcare is so damned expensive? Natural market forces, supply and demand is not an solve all algorithm.
IMO healthcare should be like the military, for the people by the people.

 

[SNC]

What do you think?

At this point I would have to say yes.

 

[brycejones]

Myself as a conservative would back universal health care provided they could get the cost of actual healthcare within reason. Insurance would work fine if they only fixed the real problem and not how and who pays for it.

Are you willing to accept price controls and some form of rationing of healthcare? By rationing I mean wait times for non-urgent procedures, tests, etc.

 

[SNC]

Are you willing to accept price controls and some form of rationing of healthcare? By rationing I mean wait times for non-urgent procedures, tests, etc.

As a conservative I could accept that and go one step further; mandate that no more cosmetic drugs be created or advanced until the major health issues affecting people are fixed, cancer being among them. There is far too much management of illnesses. I understand that the above paints me as a liberal, but providing for a healthy workforce and not having to pay untold b(t)illions on maintenance for people suffering from things that at this point should be curable\fixable is just a stupid way to spend money and to treat your fellow man.

 

[shortylickens]

My argument is more about the people.

Getting rid of the piece of shit politicians and lobbyists would be fantastic. Just have to vote in some good ones.

By regulated market I was thinking of drug suppliers, hospitals, as well as insurance companies. I agree that it would be required as a precursor to single payer, otherwise there will always be a decent argument against taxpayer funded healthcare.

I'm fortunate as hell and (supposedly lol) will have great health insurance for life. I truly want everyone to have this same peace of mind. The healthcare part seems pretty simple, resetting the priorities of the people seems impossible at this point in time.

The reason Mr Obama tried to manipulate the insurance system is he knew damn well he couldnt fix the actual health care problems. I dont see that changing with someone like Donald Trump. He's the kind of person who makes money from the messed up healthcare in America.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Myself as a conservative would back universal health care provided they could get the cost of actual healthcare within reason. Insurance would work fine if they only fixed the real problem and not how and who pays for it.

The number of Republicans willing to regulate health care profits is even fewer.

 

[Sunburn74]

- Isnt the hole problem in the concept of "health care market" though? Is healthcare something you want a market for? I am thinking bigpharama with an incentive to maintain and not to cure.
The second your healthcare company is listed, have a board of directors, the companys number one goal is to turn a profit and not to treat and cure human beings.
I am thinking this is why your healthcare is so damned expensive? Natural market forces, supply and demand is not an solve all algorithm.
IMO healthcare should be like the military, for the people by the people.

It's an unsubstantiated myth to believe that big pharma isn't trying to cure.

First of all, there are a lot of people who have massive incentives and the ability to cure diseases besides big pharma, mostly researchers who are funded by the NIH or other independent funding sources. In fact most drug research (85% of the dollars spent) comes from the NIH (ie US government) and goes to independent researchers at various universities and hospitals. Big pharma simply steps in at the final production and marketing (ie phase 2-4 trials) often. There is also small pharma (ie small companies looking to become big pharma) who if big pharma is ignoring a cure/viable treatment strategy are more than willing to step in and take the benefit. In fact, often all a small company needs is one hit, one excellent drug approved in a small study to really make it big.

Finally at the end of the day companies are responsible to their investors and their board of directors and they are competing with each other somewhat. If you can cure something and in the process absolutely cripple your competition by stealing all their profits and enjoying massive growth and development for even more R&D why wouldn't you? Drug development is capitalism 101. Crush your enemies and make the best product that you can sell at the highest prices.

 

[brycejones]

As a conservative I could accept that and go one step further; mandate that no more cosmetic drugs be created or advanced until the major health issues affecting people are fixed, cancer being among them. There is far too much management of illnesses. I understand that the above paints me as a liberal, but providing for a healthy workforce and not having to pay untold b(t)illions on maintenance for people suffering from things that at this point should be curable\fixable is just a stupid way to spend money and to treat your fellow man.

I'm guessing by "cosmetic" you really mean treatments for symptoms instead of cures for the underlying health issue?

 

[Humpy]

IMO healthcare should be like the military, for the people by the people.

I agree, and I would shift a bunch of money from military/foreign aid spending to help pay for everyone's healthcare. The best way to pay is to spread the cost out among everyone.

I also agree that if healthcare was like the military it would be horribly ineffective and wasteful and understand why taxpayers don't want to feel like they are getting screwed by overpaying for poor service.

Unlike most everything else I won't pretend like I have solid input. This is one of the few issues that actually matter but at the same time the country elected an idiot for their leader for the fun of it, as a joke to troll the world they elected the retarded kid prom king. The people have spoken for now.

 

[WackyDan]

I like how the article frames it as a Democratic opportunity because the author knows there's zero chance of Republicans ever backing universal health care.

Democrats (politicians) don't want universal health care either. Oh, I know they say they do, but that simply isn't the truth either, otherwise the ACA would have been exactly that.

Tell you what... If you want universal health care, then you need to first rally around the need for REAL campaign finance reform. Only then does single payer or any real health care reform stand a chance. If people can't grasp the need for campaign finance reform first.... Then we are doomed to continue the same circle jerk.

 

[werepossum]

I'M in the V.A. system.
It fucking sucks.
Sucks donkey balls. And its only become worse since I first started using it in 2006.

Any time I have the opportunity I use a regular hospital.
After Mr Obama fucked up the insurance system, my private healthcare turned horrible as well.
Do not like.

Cant imagine what federal health care would look like, but I doubt it would be better than the V.A.

Yeah, one of my cow-orkers just go on our insurance because his free gubmit insurance sucks so hard that our sucky and expensive post-Obama health insurance is by contrast worth paying for.

I think one reason our system is so expensive is that we basically support all the R&D by American companies, which is probably most of the R&D worldwide. Nations like Canada (feel free to substitute literally any other Western nation here) set price controls which keep drugs just barely profitable considering actual production costs. They aren't selling $10 pills for $0.25 out of altruism, but because those pills actually only cost a nickel to produce and ship. Once we go socialized, we too can set price controls, which should have the effect of making our health care cheaper and everyone else's more expensive. It might also gut R&D, but if D.C. could pull its collective head out of its collective ass long enough, maybe we can keep research on drugs we need rather than companies developing that eighteenth boner pill simply because boner pills are hugely profitable and they want one too.

 

[Mandres]

Democrats (politicians) don't want universal health care either. Oh, I know they say they do, but that simply isn't the truth either, otherwise the ACA would have been exactly that.

Tell you what... If you want universal health care, then you need to first rally around the need for REAL campaign finance reform. Only then does single payer or any real health care reform stand a chance. If people can't grasp the need for campaign finance reform first.... Then we are doomed to continue the same circle jerk.

Agreed. The public interest (universal healthcare) can't compete against private interests in American politics, not as long as it costs Texa$ to run a winning campaign.

 

[K1052]

Yeah, one of my cow-orkers just go on our insurance because his free gubmit insurance sucks so hard that our sucky and expensive post-Obama health insurance is by contrast worth paying for.

I think one reason our system is so expensive is that we basically support all the R&D by American companies, which is probably most of the R&D worldwide. Nations like Canada (feel free to substitute literally any other Western nation here) set price controls which keep drugs just barely profitable considering actual production costs. They aren't selling $10 pills for $0.25 out of altruism, but because those pills actually only cost a nickel to produce and ship. Once we go socialized, we too can set price controls, which should have the effect of making our health care cheaper and everyone else's more expensive. It might also gut R&D, but if D.C. could pull its collective head out of its collective ass long enough, maybe we can keep research on drugs we need rather than companies developing that eighteenth boner pill simply because boner pills are hugely profitable and they want one too.

Most drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D.

There are surely ways to collapse the rampant profiteering of pharma companies while still developing new and innovative drugs.

 

[werepossum]

Most drug companies spend more on marketing than they do on R&D.

There are surely ways to collapse the rampant profiteering of pharma companies while still developing new and innovative drugs.

Unless you are proposing to nationalize drug companies, I don't think we can do much about marketing. However, America is a hugely profitable market for pharmaceuticals. If and when that market becomes less profitable, government will have more leverage to incent some R&D over other R&D.

 

[Genx87]

Democrats (politicians) don't want universal health care either. Oh, I know they say they do, but that simply isn't the truth either, otherwise the ACA would have been exactly that.

Tell you what... If you want universal health care, then you need to first rally around the need for REAL campaign finance reform. Only then does single payer or any real health care reform stand a chance. If people can't grasp the need for campaign finance reform first.... Then we are doomed to continue the same circle jerk.

Enough of the leadership wont even say they want single payer. Feinstein outright says she cant get behind it. Franken wouldnt even answer a simple question. CA democrats have the ability to pass single payer without republicans and shelved it. Then you look at Obamacare, that was passed by democrats with their basic super majority and they give us a republican plan from 15 years earlier. Writing is on the wall. Which is surprising to me.

 

[NAC4EV]

Health care for profit doesn't work.

 

[zzyzxroad]

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/health-expenditures.htm.

I believe persecution drugs only make us around 10% of the overall spend on healthcare so while an important piece it's not the only thing to look at.

 

[agent00f]

The number of Republicans willing to regulate health care profits is even fewer.

Single payer free healthcare would pass tomorrow if it were made whites-only.

 

[K1052]

Unless you are proposing to nationalize drug companies, I don't think we can do much about marketing. However, America is a hugely profitable market for pharmaceuticals. If and when that market becomes less profitable, government will have more leverage to incent some R&D over other R&D.

Nothing so drastic would be required. There are ways to ratchet down the advertising with regulation that don't infringe on the rights of those companies. The US government could always also refuse to reimburse for/buy medications that are advertised or marketed to doctors, that would probably cut it down real quick.

 

[SNC]

Single payer free healthcare would pass tomorrow if it were made whites-only.

You always have so much to offer a conversation.

 

[SNC]

I'm guessing by "cosmetic" you really mean treatments for symptoms instead of cures for the underlying health issue?

More viagra and the like, but yes I'd lump those types in as well.

 

[agent00f]

You always have so much to offer a conversation.

It's a straightforward observation of how american politics works, in contrast to the worthless canned talking points typically on offer. The only question is whether the GOP could get enough democrats to look the other way and it's unwise to bet against that.

 

[pcgeek11]

Are you willing to accept price controls and some form of rationing of healthcare? By rationing I mean wait times for non-urgent procedures, tests, etc.

Sure why not if it is Non-urgent.

 

[IronWing]

I believe persecution drugs only make us around 10% of the overall spend on healthcare so while an important piece it's not the only thing to look at.

I think the epidemic of persecution drug abuse may be the single greatest threat to our republic.

 

[brycejones]

Sure why not if it is Non-urgent.

So to confirm you are good with price controls and the rationing of care. That is a positive first step in the discussion.