There are of course examples of excellent socialized healthcare systems in the world, such as in one of the Nordic countries like Denmark. There, standard of living is good and free education and health services for everyone.

That said, taxes and cost of living are a lot higher in return, so is a lot harder to 'get rich' in one of those countries. Also, Denmark for example has a population of about 6 million and is significantly more homogenous demographically.

So it isn't like socialized healthcare is an 'evil' concept in and of itself. Denmark is a perfectly safe and well functioning country and has lots of happy Danes in it. However, For a country like the United States with a population of 350+ million and extremely heterogenous demographically, a system similar to what a country like Denmark employs is simply not a feasible good fit.

Probably the closest example to similar challenges the U.S.A. faces in terms of democratically governed huge population with heterogenous society is a country like India. If you look at their healthcare system, it is a
complex mix of government-funded public hospitals with a large private market, with the government funding burdens a mix of national and state-level subsidies.

The 'right' fit for the U.S.A. - and there well never be a 'right' solution that is going to be perfect for everyone for such a complex problem - is doubtless a mix of public vs. private approaches as well. But is a really difficult problem to try to solve.

Waffledynamics said:

---

And now the Dems use the predictable "Republicans are taking away your healthcare" line.

---

They didn't take mine away.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

There are of course examples of excellent socialized healthcare systems in the world, such as in one of the Nordic countries like Denmark. There, standard of living is good and free education and health services for everyone.

That said, taxes and cost of living are a lot higher in return, so is a lot harder to 'get rich' in one of those countries. Also, Denmark for example has a population of about 6 million and is significantly more homogenous demographically.

So it isn't like socialized healthcare is an 'evil' concept in and of itself. Denmark is a perfectly safe and well functioning country and has lots of happy Danes in it. However, For a country like the United States with a population of 350+ million and extremely heterogenous demographically, a system similar to what a country like Denmark employs is simply not a feasible good fit.

Probably the closest example to similar challenges the U.S.A. faces in terms of democratically governed huge population with heterogenous society is a country like India. If you look at their healthcare system, it is a
complex mix of government-funded public hospitals with a large private market, with the government funding burdens a mix of national and state-level subsidies.

The 'right' fit for the U.S.A. - and there well never be a 'right' solution that is going to be perfect for everyone for such a complex problem - is doubtless a mix of public vs. private approaches as well. But is a really difficult problem to try to solve.

---

Except corp taxes, which are LOWER than here. If you want to have "free" stuff then the lower and middle classes will have to actually pay into the system, many have a negative tax rate now.

Wrong

It's evil

The only real solution, like all markets where govt interfered and screwed things up, is to reverse that idiocy completely.

Repeal DebacleCare, Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA, etc.

samurai_science said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

There are of course examples of excellent socialized healthcare systems in the world, such as in one of the Nordic countries like Denmark. There, standard of living is good and free education and health services for everyone.

That said, taxes and cost of living are a lot higher in return, so is a lot harder to 'get rich' in one of those countries. Also, Denmark for example has a population of about 6 million and is significantly more homogenous demographically.

So it isn't like socialized healthcare is an 'evil' concept in and of itself. Denmark is a perfectly safe and well functioning country and has lots of happy Danes in it. However, For a country like the United States with a population of 350+ million and extremely heterogenous demographically, a system similar to what a country like Denmark employs is simply not a feasible good fit.

Probably the closest example to similar challenges the U.S.A. faces in terms of democratically governed huge population with heterogenous society is a country like India. If you look at their healthcare system, it is a
complex mix of government-funded public hospitals with a large private market, with the government funding burdens a mix of national and state-level subsidies.

The 'right' fit for the U.S.A. - and there well never be a 'right' solution that is going to be perfect for everyone for such a complex problem - is doubtless a mix of public vs. private approaches as well. But is a really difficult problem to try to solve.

---

Except corp taxes, which are LOWER than here. If you want to have "free" stuff then the lower and middle classes will have to actually pay into the system, many have a negative tax rate now.

---

If we went to a single-payer system, the low end estimate is that it would cost $3T per year which obviously means it would be closer to $5T. So you are looking at a 100-233% cost increase over current annual spend for healthcare. All adults would need to pay into that to cover it but we know that would never happen. It would get means tested like everything else and the existing producers would have their taxes increased by orders of magnitude to cover it.

Never mind the massive inefficiencies that would be inherent in anything that the government is behind. It's laughable that in the studies that have been done on this the thing that's always lauded are all of the efficiencies we gain in such a model. LOL! Pure 1984 gaslighting.

Doesn't look like it is dead - 4 republicans crossed the aisle to force a vote and I'm assuming those 4 republicans will vote to extend it

Pumpkinhead said:

---

There are of course examples of excellent socialized healthcare systems in the world

---

AgDad121619 said:

---

Doesn't look like it is dead - 4 republicans crossed the aisle to force a vote and I'm assuming those 4 republicans will vote to extend it

---

Looks like the vote would not happen until next month. In the meantime, they are supposedly voting today on the Republican healthcare plan. Not sure if this plan gets passed (lol doubtful) how it might conflict, if at all, with a vote on ACA subsidies in January.

What to expect when we get Universal Healthcare or Single Payer -

This is what happens in all markets that are socialized, including healthcare:
Take the current level of care at the moment of socialization and freeze it. Take a picture of it. That is the highest quality and lowest cost it will be. Ever. At first quality will stay the same, roughly, though the trajectory of what the best care will go down while the cost will slowly go up. Efficiencies are only to be made at the bureaucratic level, so as the entities in charge go up, overhead costs start to soar after about 5-10 years. Efficiencies and innovations in care are gradually slowed to come around in direct proportion to the size of the bureaucracy. Eventually the quality will decline dramatically due to the uncontrollable costs that cannot be changed due to governmental political and oversight constraints.

Look at the current state of public education and you have only a small idea of how badly managed Healthcare will be (Public education is still localish/state administered). Look at NASA and how they can't get a rocket into space anymore with 10s of billions of dollars and the expertise to do it.

Start the timer on the bankruptcy of the US, because it will be within 5-10 years of any UHC or Single Payer system, all while we won't be able to see a doctor for anything but a few stitches within 6 months of applying for an appointment.

Correct. And never-mind you are piling trillions more per year in spending on top of an existing $38T debt that everyone in Washington has said we are not going to address.

All it would do is accelerate the implosion.

You're already seeing that with ACA.

We've had several friends of ours try it out. One of them even had a rep come over, and explain the options/rates/coverage to them. They were promised that it 'covers everything, cheaper option, blah blah blah...."

But when they needed to see a specialist, they could never see the doctor they needed to see, because the providers didn't accept it.

What good does 'covering everything' do, if you cant use it.

AgGrad99 said:

---

You're already seeing that with ACA.

We've had several friends of ours try it out. One of them even had a rep come over, and explain the options/rates/coverage to them. They were promised that it 'covers everything, cheaper option, blah blah blah...."

But when they needed to see a specialist, they could never see the doctor they needed to see, because the providers didn't accept it.

What good does 'covering everything' do, if you cant use it.

---

Yep. Nobody takes Obamacare. So, it's rarely actually used. As I said earlier, the government sent $38 billion direct paid to insurance companies for people that never even used it.

Just money laid to these ****wads and all we got was payment to politicians' political funds and lobbyists.

I was on ACA for about 6 months and it almost killed me due to no one taking it. I had to go to Denver, 4 hours away, to see an oncologist that took it and she was completely useless.

We need to have self service docs and hospitals where I can do it myself like self checkout lines in grocery stores.

There is only one way socialized medicine works.

There has to be blunt talk that in order to have access to healthcare (Not free Healthcare) that EVERYONE PAYS. No illegal aliens, no loop holes, no….i am too poor to ci tribute. The tax rates are going to be high…..they will reduce each of your paychecks. The average citizen has to accept they will take home much less pay. The trade off is access to health care. Works very well in Denmark.


I am 1000% against healthcare at least for another 25 years. The folks who are running our government will find a way to just rape and pillage for self profit, power and control.

Maybe we can institute Vietnam like rules that if high up workers embezzle from the people they get a rapid trial, one chance to contest and then they are executed.

For-profit healthcare has failed everywhere it's been tried. The government didn't invent the private insurance industry, nor did it create TPAs, PBMs, brokers, and all of the other pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step.

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

esteban said:

---

For-profit healthcare has failed everywhere it's been tried. The government didn't invent the private insurance industry, nor did it create TPAs, PBMs, brokers, and all of the other pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step.

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

It's worked for over 200 years in this country.

esteban said:

---

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

A public "option" is fine. Just no tax dollars going into it. Let it compete with private industry. If people and employers think the public option is better, they'll choose it. If not, it fades away.

esteban said:

---

For-profit healthcare has failed everywhere it's been tried. The government didn't invent the private insurance industry, nor did it create TPAs, PBMs, brokers, and all of the other pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step.

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

No.

UHC is ****ing horrible and an idiotic idea.

Get govt out of the way, not more into it.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

esteban said:

---

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

A public "option" is fine. Just no tax dollars going into it. Let it compete with private industry. If people and employers think the public option is better, they'll choose it. If not, it fades away.

---

It would be better and cheaper, so I'm all for it.

Logos Stick said:

---

esteban said:

---

For-profit healthcare has failed everywhere it's been tried. The government didn't invent the private insurance industry, nor did it create TPAs, PBMs, brokers, and all of the other pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step.

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

It's worked for over 200 years in this country.

---

It only worked if you never had to use it. Once you got sick, your insurer could drop you, and no other insurer was obligated to pick you up. Anyone who says that was a better system is lying or ignorant.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Love it! There should be NO Obamacare. It was and is theft.

---

Sadly I believe that what's just running out are the "enhancements" (aka more free ****) put in place during Covid, and nothing about the original Obamacare entitlements.

Someone can easily correct me if I'm wrong.

esteban said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

esteban said:

---

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

A public "option" is fine. Just no tax dollars going into it. Let it compete with private industry. If people and employers think the public option is better, they'll choose it. If not, it fades away.

---

It would be better and cheaper, so I'm all for it.

---

So a public option that doesn't require participation or taxes from citizens? A non-profit government insurance provider that charges an overhead fee to cover its cost but not a profit motive?

In theory, it should be able to out-compete a for-profit insurer that has to earn expected profits. Then again, government is notoriously inefficient, slow, and ineffective in functions requiring high customer service, so I could see them giving up their theoretical advantage due to poor execution.

I'm not philosophically opposed to trying it, as long as it's not a mandated thing or requires tax revenue.

Would the Dems support it? It seems like they would rather mandate participation, assess a tax, and unionize the staff. R's would probably be less opposed if it doesn't mandate participation or require taxes.

The health insurance industry is the biggest scam in American history and yet we have people who still somehow believe the government should be in this industry.

esteban said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

esteban said:

---

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

A public "option" is fine. Just no tax dollars going into it. Let it compete with private industry. If people and employers think the public option is better, they'll choose it. If not, it fades away.

---

It would be better and cheaper, so I'm all for it.

---

It absolutely would not be better or cheaper. I laid out quality and costs above. Do some research and learn basic economics.

I was with a loved one going into surgery today. The non-medical questions asked were unbelievable.

Phatbob said:

---

What to expect when we get Universal Healthcare or Single Payer -

This is what happens in all markets that are socialized, including healthcare:
Take the current level of care at the moment of socialization and freeze it. Take a picture of it. That is the highest quality and lowest cost it will be. Ever. At first quality will stay the same, roughly, though the trajectory of what the best care will go down while the cost will slowly go up. Efficiencies are only to be made at the bureaucratic level, so as the entities in charge go up, overhead costs start to soar after about 5-10 years. Efficiencies and innovations in care are gradually slowed to come around in direct proportion to the size of the bureaucracy. Eventually the quality will decline dramatically due to the uncontrollable costs that cannot be changed due to governmental political and oversight constraints.

Look at the current state of public education and you have only a small idea of how badly managed Healthcare will be (Public education is still localish/state administered). Look at NASA and how they can't get a rocket into space anymore with 10s of billions of dollars and the expertise to do it.

Start the timer on the bankruptcy of the US, because it will be within 5-10 years of any UHC or Single Payer system, all while we won't be able to see a doctor for anything but a few stitches within 6 months of applying for an appointment.

---

I was watching a video from a person who says they have ADHD but it is entirely self diagnosed. This person lives in London and won't be able to get into a doctor for a ADHD diagnoses for 8 months at least.

FCBlitz said:

---

There is only one way socialized medicine works.

There has to be blunt talk that in order to have access to healthcare (Not free Healthcare) that EVERYONE PAYS. No illegal aliens, no loop holes, no….i am too poor to ci tribute. The tax rates are going to be high…..they will reduce each of your paychecks. The average citizen has to accept they will take home much less pay. The trade off is access to health care. Works very well in Denmark.

I am 1000% against healthcare at least for another 25 years. The folks who are running our government will find a way to just rape and pillage for self profit, power and control.

Maybe we can institute Vietnam like rules that if high up workers embezzle from the people they get a rapid trial, one chance to contest and then they are executed.

---

LOL...that won't happen.

Queso1 said:

---

I was with a loved one going into surgery today. The non-medical questions asked were unbelievable.

---

I had surgery last week. I had to confirm to the hospital staff that I felt safe at home and wasn't being abused. But before I did, I very dramatically with an extreme look of fear on my face swung my head to my wife and just stared at her.

We all laughed.

esteban said:

---

For-profit healthcare has failed everywhere it's been tried. The government didn't invent the private insurance industry, nor did it create TPAs, PBMs, brokers, and all of the other pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step.

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

History is not your strong suit.

The government 100% created this mess and debaclecare made it 10x worse.

agracer said:

---

esteban said:

---

For-profit healthcare has failed everywhere it's been tried. The government didn't invent the private insurance industry, nor did it create TPAs, PBMs, brokers, and all of the other pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step.

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

History is not your strong suit.

The government 100% created this mess and debaclecare made it 10x worse.

---

He's far left wing. That's pretty much a given.

YouBet said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

I was with a loved one going into surgery today. The non-medical questions asked were unbelievable.

---

I had surgery last week. I had to confirm to the hospital staff that I felt safe at home and wasn't being abused. But before I did, I very dramatically with an extreme look of fear on my face swung my head to my wife and just stared at her.

We all laughed.

---

Similar thing for me when I had my surgery earlier this year. I wrote a note prior with HELP on it and gave it to the nurse with my gf next to me when he asked the questions. The nurse is in the same BJJ class as me and he knew I was fine. He took the note, gave it to the surgeon and got him in on the joke. My gf laughed her ass off and told them to just pull the plug.

Hoyt Ag said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

I was with a loved one going into surgery today. The non-medical questions asked were unbelievable.

---

I had surgery last week. I had to confirm to the hospital staff that I felt safe at home and wasn't being abused. But before I did, I very dramatically with an extreme look of fear on my face swung my head to my wife and just stared at her.

We all laughed.

---

Similar thing for me when I had my surgery earlier this year. I wrote a note prior with HELP on it and gave it to the nurse with my gf next to me when he asked the questions. The nurse is in the same BJJ class as me and he knew I was fine. He took the note, gave it to the surgeon and got him in on the joke. My gf laughed her ass off and told them to just pull the plug.

---

I had to answer these questions again for my post-op followup with doc tomorrow. I guess we will get asked every time we go to the doc now.

esteban said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

esteban said:

---

At the very least, we need a public option to compete with private insurance, both in the individual and employer/group markets.

---

A public "option" is fine. Just no tax dollars going into it. Let it compete with private industry. If people and employers think the public option is better, they'll choose it. If not, it fades away.

---

It would be better and cheaper, so I'm all for it.

---

Wait....

A couple posts before this, you criticize "pointless middlemen sucking money out of the system at every step," in our healthcare system.

But then make the claim, that adding the Federal Government into the equation, as the middle man, would be 'better and cheaper'.

Name one thing the government does better and cheaper than private industry......

The Government would be the biggest and most inefficient middle man imaginable. They always are...Every.Single.Time. That simply does not equate to 'better and cheaper'.