Do you think a doctor in a single-payer system should be free to make unlimited money?
On an individual level this will always be true. There will always be great people drawn to the profession.
The problem with government paying for everything is what happens to any other service run by the government or funded entirely by the federal government.
It gets worse and worse as time goes on. Without exception.
Do you want to learn what the healthcare equivalent to the Baltimore Public School system is?
What happens when we rely on people self-selecting for a job that gets progressively more unpalatable over decades?
Ask a cop in 2022. Or a public school teacher. Or take a look at the results of any other major progressive policies of the last 100 years. None have worked as advertised.
1 Like
Kind of a weird question, because we’re really just talking about theoreticals here… In a free market system, we can pretend a doctor could make ‘unlimited money’, but since there are zero cases of a doctor ever making unlimited money, it’s not really a conversation worth engaging in.
I’ll answer with what I think a single payer system CAN do, which is come close to replicating salary structures that already are in place today in hospitals across the country. Does that answer your question, more or less? In other words, I don’t think you have to create pay cuts for good doctors to make the system work.
1 Like
probably pretty similar to the shittiest hospitals in the US now.
There are great hospitals in the US right now, and there are shitty ones. There are great public schools, and shitty ones.
are you arguing for the privatization of these things?
I just wrapped up an incredibly progressive liberal course talking about disproportionate health outcomes for minorities (no, I didn’t choose this course). The root cause of almost every one of the disparities this course was chasing after was legislation that intended to help or prevent these exact problems.
What I’m saying is that you are 100% correct. These legislative bills rarely produce the result they are intending.
1 Like
Not even remotely close. Even the worst hospital will be a dramatic improvement over self-treatment in an unsterile bathroom.
There are many, many US jurisdictions with fully funded public schools that fail to educate the majority of children who are presented with diplomas. Being merely functionally literate is a better than average outcome in Baltimore.
There are a lot of reasons for that, but a lack of progressive policy priorities isn’t one of them.
Definitely not police but I am in favor of vouchers and the concept of charter schools.
These two examples are illustrative of progressive policies run amok for decades along with rank politicization driving priorities.
If you think that healthcare as an industry will somehow be improved by implementing progressive policy priorities, you have to hold that belief in spite of the many bad outcomes of progressive policies.
Or, like most progressives, you can hold the belief that the worsening outcomes over time were unrelated to the progressive policy changes. Just ask Jen Psaki, everything can be explained away with the right set of vague words and lofty narratives.
In simple terms, I remain highly skeptical that our Federal government will suddenly become good at anything outside of the Military (which has plenty of problems too).
Man, I miss the insurance I had in 2001.
I’m not sure I get the reference? Are you saying that a single payer system will result in ‘self treatment in unsterile bathrooms’? This is quite the projection. It really just feels like hyperbole, I’m not going for that. I’d prefer to talk about real expected outcomes.
I know how bad it is, but as you’re saying, lots of reasons. The mere fact that it is a public school system is not it.
Why not? You just said our outcomes with our police system are poor, ‘just ask a cop in 2022’. So I’m a bit confused. I don’t know why you’d bring police up if you don’t think a private system would be an improvement. Seems to be an argument in favor of it as a public resource. What am I missing?
I grew up in an area where there were some really shit charter schools, I mean REALLY shit ones. Far worse than the public schools in my area. I went to public school and ended up getting a free ride to college for academics. I don’t think there is anything inherent in a charter school that simply makes it better than a public school. I think we need to do better with our public schools. Just adding a bunch of charter schools to the mix won’t fix anything.
Did you get insurance through the company you worked for, or was it an individual policy? Just curious.
I think a crucial difference in our thinking is that I don’t believe that just because the government is bad at one thing, it’s going to be bad at another. I think that, if implemented poorly, a single payer system COULD be a disaster, no question. But I think our current healthcare system is so deeply flawed, and has been since well before the ACA, that I would like to see us at least TRY something else.
The issue I have with this is not all students cost the same to get through school. Do the private or charter schools have to take disabled kids? Do they have to provide infrastructure for them?
It might cost an average of 10K per student per year in the public school system (just making up numbers). The typical student might cost 6K to educate, while some of the disabled ones cost 50K.
I am more for vouchers if the amount is not based on average, but typical students. If the voucher is for 6K, and 4K goes to the school that is taking the difficult students to teach, then I think I could be okay with it.
Or if the private / charter schools don’t get a say in admissions and have to take students of all kinds, then I am okay with it.
Sorry, the other side of that would be sending your uneducated child to a poor public school instead of doing it at home.
The worst hospital in the US would still be a huge improvement over home treatment.
The worst public schools in the US are not a dramatic improvement over doing it yourself. It is not a stretch to say many children are worse off for attending.
Hence, our worst schools are much, much worse than our current worst hospitals.
Because it illustrates how vulnerable a profession, especially a taxpayer funded profession, is to short-sighted progressive policy priorities. It also provides yet another example of progressives selling a pie-in-the-sky notion like defunding the police (and many other policies like consent decrees and bail reform) that ends up making things much worse overall.
LEO Recruitment is a major, major issue. Nobody wants to be the next Democrat scapegoat like Darren Wilson. He gets his life shattered while the mother of the man who assaulted him gets invited on stage at the DNC.
As I’ve said before, the bouncers of today are ready to carry a gun and do the police work of the future as they slowly become top tier candidates for police work. Not because they will make good cops, because they won’t, but because they will be willing to do the work.
Our federal government just showed its willingness to put people out of work for refusing a faulty medical treatment that didn’t work as advertised. In some areas you got shut out of public life for not taking the jab.
That’s with the very limited power they have now over healthcare.
What’s over the horizon for us when the government controls even more of healthcare?
I can’t predict the future, but I’m certain it will involve more…,
Do as we say, or else.
1 Like
I agree that is a concern, but so are public schools where being able to read is an above average outcome for someone who spent 12 years in the institution.
1 Like
My guess is that is at least in part a student issue. A you can lead a horse to water type thing…
I am sure some schools are actually better at teaching the topics, but I also find it hard to believe that an average student that tried to do well would be in a position of hardly being able to read by the time of graduation.
In my state, we have one of the worst achievement gaps in the country. We also have one of the best public school systems in the country. Over the last couple decades, funds have been redirected to inner city schools to try to close the achievement gap. The gap has gotten bigger.
The average student in Baltimore has the same potential as the average student in any city. What sets Baltimore and similarly failed governments apart is decades of one-party progressive policy priorities playing out across generations.
1 Like
I disagree here a bit. I don’t think it is failed progressive policy.
Areas of poverty (inner cities) just don’t seem to perform as well. In MN, we have some of the best public schools in the country. We have suburb areas that are run by progressives with awesome standardized test scores, and inner city areas that are also run by progressives with terrible standardized test scores.
So both schools are run by people with similar policies, the inner city schools actually get more money per student, but there is a vast difference in outcome. That leads me to believe it isn’t the policy / or the progressives in charge.
And lightyears ahead of Biden.
I think it is successful progressive policy. Progressive policies that produce our modern inner city societies and institutions are successful because none of it was designed to improve outcomes. It was designed to win elections for Democrats, and it has worked very well in that regard.
Strange coincidence there. While there’s always been achievement gaps, it was narrowing for many decades, until that trend reverse.
Just because a progressive policy exists and things aren’t bad (yet) doesn’t mean it is great policy. It takes time to drag down a decently-run, healthy society with a good foundation of values.
There was a period in time where you could point to Hugo Chavez’ progressive policies in Venezuela and the dramatically improved outcomes they were delivering in that moment in time. The problem with progressive policies is how they play out over years and decades. Now a Venezuelan is lucky to be able find enough food to maintain his bodyweight.
If we look at the group modern progressives have “helped” the most through policy, we can see that academic performance metrics have fallen dramatically in recent decades. It didn’t happen instantly.
Somehow, in the absence of good-intentioned progressive policies, Americans of all kinds and especially black Americans were seeing increasingly good outcomes over the span of decades, up until around 1970. The black American family survived slavery, Jim Crow and the Klu Klux Klan. It didn’t begin dissolving as the primary social unit until progressives made it their business to “help” by incentivizing single motherhood.
Somehow, someway it is now unusual for black high school graduates to perform at the standards we’ve always expected high school graduates to perform at.
You can explain that away with all kinds of rhetoric, but there’s increasingly zero room to argue that these major progressive policies and governance priorities have been beneficial over the long term.
Forget long term for a moment. Look at the clown show of the present administration. Would you want Joe Biden running your Post Office, let alone the healthcare industry?
1 Like
No, please don’t, you might learn something.
Saying that Dems are lefties just goes to show the level of brainwashing you’ve under gone.
And who is your candidate? Oh, I forgot Crenshaw/DeSantis. The country needs people like you to continue the oligarchy. Good job!
is that your defense of the profit making system disguised as healthcare?
Again is Disney the rule or exception? With the renewed interests in unions, hopefully, people voicing their concerns and power, will help to transform the workers lives.