By definition, it is supposed to be in the hands of the government.
Which would be weird, right? Considering you read through the actual bill and found where it was.
Whodathunk.
You realize public education is very popular right? Have you ever heard a politician say we need to get rid of education? That social security is popular. Medicare.
My point was it’s completely possible to get rid of or make changes to these things. If it doesn’t happen that’s simply the people of the country telling you they don’t want them taken away. It’s like your acting like government isn’t made up of elected representatives or something. You keep talking about it like it’s alien robot that has items humans can’t mess with.
Why did Trump say he wasn’t going to touch social security and Medicare? Because people like them. But acting as if the country doesn’t have the power to make changes to them is simply untrue. Which is why “if you pass that health care bill you’ll never get rid of it!” is a dumb take. Your right you won’t get rid of it if it’s popular and people will only vote for politicians that keep it.
I think NPRs analysis was right on. For the conditions where private insurance could exist is a market place where it’s impossible for them to exist.
It’s mere lip service to private insurance. If the plan were implemented, there would be no shot for private insurance to exist. It would all be ceded by the government.
It’s like saying if I were a sherriff , “You are free, so long as you stay in jail”
I wasn’t talking about like or dislike. I was answering the question about the ability to take things ceded to the government back from the government.
Once you give up control, you never get it back. Popularity has nothing to do with it.
I have no idea what you mean then. It’s completely possible to change government policy. The idea that something could be passed and then never changed isn’t based in reality.
You said try and pry public education, etc away from the government and of course if the country wanted to do it it could be done . But the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t vote for someone who would do that. But it’s been changed numerous times and will be in the future.
That’s not the same as not being able to take something back in the least bit. If you convince enough people to vote representatives to do something it can happen. In fact it does plenty of times. And history has all sorts of examples of the government being able to do something and then no longer doing it.
The things you’re talking about not being able to “get back” are things people don’t want the government to stop doing. Again that’s why the guy you support said he wasn’t going to touch Medicare or Social Security. And now rumors are he might because he’s a liar. But that shoots down your theory that things can’t be removed.
If private insurance finds it hard to exist, what’s the problem? Private insurance doesn’t have the right to exist.
Waiting 18 weeks to start cancer treatment is in your best interest?
If healthcare in Europe is so bad, why are they healthier and happier?
The concept of a wait means quality is lower, hard stop. Instant gratification is all the rage these days.
Besides, we need the financial industry to stay profitable. The number of people that used to be on my foreclosed home list for medical reasons was impressive.
Given how little time you have to beat certain cancers, starting chemo and radiation sooner would be my top priority myself or someone I cared about got diagnosed. But since you mentioned quality:
Yeah, damned stubborn Americans. They’re just impatient is all. There’s no real objections to single payer. 
Because they let the unhealthy die to reduce costs. 4d chess. 
The issue here is the sample size and the observed event. In the first article, they’re comparing Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan with a hospital in Portsmouth, supposedly with added ponders to negate the affluence of patients in the US hospital. A larger sample size across all social strata (UK) means more poorer people with chronic diseases who are belatedly diagnosed, resulting in higher death rates.
The study from the second headline grabbing article refers to “hospital death rates”. Again, the sample matters. If you do not die in a hospital, you’re not recorded as such.
Healthcare Quality and Access (HAQ) Index, 1990-2016
Researchers have looked at mortality that results from medical conditions for which there are recognized health care interventions that would be expected to prevent death. While the health care system might not be expected to prevent death in all of these instances, differences in mortality for these conditions provides information about how effectively health care is being delivered. Mortality amenable to health care dropped in the United States by 21.3 deaths per 100,000 from 2004 to 2014, but these were the smallest gains among comparable countries. The United States was still experiencing almost 40 more deaths amenable to health care than comparable countries in 2014.
1 Like
We only let the healthy die?
Bwop. Quality Sources.
I approach this topic from the view of my personal friends and family mostly. The ones who can’t afford regular screenings, that don’t have enough govt assistance to catch said cancer quickly (or the work ethic to supplement it).
I will admit the UK has slightly worse cancer survival rates than America. That being said, I’m yet to suggest we copy UK’s model, that even Bernie thinks went too far
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2.htm
From a lower income perspective? Ala over half the GOP voters and way more than half of the Dem voters? Not a whole lot.
I appreciate that I can afford good insurance. I also just recognize that single payer is inevitable since neither party can crack healthcare, and the longer we wait, the more painful the bandaid pull.
On the list of best of bad options I’d much rather we tweak the system we have (tort reform, wellness incentives etc…) and just extend Medicaid to everyone 250% of the poverty level or something… as opposed to converting every single hospital to the VA. That way the “too poor to afford coverage” is out of the way and we as a country could focus on not being super fat, stressed and over medicated.
Given how the Federal Government pays $15,000 for toilets, the EPA releases chemicals that turn rivers orange and the post office is a nightmare I’ll take a hard pass.
I don’t have any faith that our corrupt political class will do a better job than Canada or the UK. I’d bet a fairly substantial amount that it would turn out worse by every measure.
1 Like
Any sample size that includes Americans is already biased to the super unhealthy. It’s fucking amazing they keep as many people alive as they do.
I made the mistake of going to Walmart this weekend. There were six people with 23"+ fat-calves spilling out of their shoes with open diabetic sores on their legs. They were buying more junk food!
I saw a kid who couldn’t have been over 14 years old who was easily over 400lbs.
That chart you listed has weighting in it for ACCESS right? That has nothing to do with quality of care.
Not if they’re rich. And richer people are healthier with a longer life expectancy.
So if you’re comparing a NHS hospital with a specific hospital in Manhattan catering to the more affluent patients you’ll get incorrect results based on a biased sample.
It has with quality and access. But again, smaller sample size, healthier (richer) people, less hospital deaths compared to a sample across the entire population.
I’d be happy with that. I just don’t think anyone is pushing it. Dems are all in on single payer and Republicans want absolutely nothing to do with that entire industry.
What I would give for this to be the national focus instead of a trade war with China…
The post office really isn’t that bad if you remove the part where Congress went out of their way to make it impossible for them to be solvent.
Mea culpa. I’m still salty about them from when I owned an ecommerce store. They lost packages in ways I didn’t know were possible. We had a package for Kentucky with the correct address go to Portland, get scanned there and then sent to Japan, where it was never seen again.
Their employees couldn’t care less.
1 Like