full of luv

Don't worry.... I've heard that if we just elect the right people, we'll all have "Medicare for all" and your health care concerns will be a distant memory!

JamesBond

Feel the Bern?

DALFA

A single payer program or at least a public option would actually save the average american thousands of dollars per year.

Just think of the thousands of dollars per year you pay in premiums and your employer "pays" (yes I know DL is self insured) each month plus all those out of pocket expenses.

Canada spends a little less then 1/2 what is spent in the United States on healthcare costs. You can't tell me that Canada has a horrible system. This isn't rocket science.

JamesBond

Can you find a comparison on how much income tax is paid by individuals making the same money? All single payor will do is create another enormous blood sucking bureaucracy. Convince me otherwise.

Actually, here's one:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/cana...s-a-catch.html

Abouttime2fish

Medicare for all? Socialized medicine? Folks should look carefully at places where they have this. Fellow marine’s mom lived in Norway. She had breast cancer, discovered early and fully treatable, but that triaged her to last in line. By the time they got around to get it was too late. Want another example? How about health care through our very own VA? That’s working well, not. And that is just a fraction of the population.

LeineLodge

Did you even read the article you linked to?

The money is there to fund this AND do it right. All we need to do is stop spending more than most of our allies combined on defense (from your article) and prioritize the health of all Americans above subsidizing our bloodsucking defense contractors and their crazy-effective lobbyists.

Mark me down as even willing to accept a tax hike to pay for both if that is what’s required to get it done. Unfortunately neither will ever happen. We Americans are too self-absorbed to ever acknowledge that what’s good for the herd can be good for the individual.

Cue the usual arguments of “welfare queens” and death panels. Much easier to bash poor people and sell fear than to consider the possibility that other countries, just maybe, have found a more humane way to conduct business.

captainchipotle

Totally get what you’re saying. Aside from the warm and fuzzy of certain types of socialism, the fundamental facts(aren’t popular to say publicly) is that you are afforded certain liberties and freedoms from the constitution. Unfortunately, health care isn’t a RIGHT, a good paying job isn’t a RIGHT(constitutionally speaking). You do have the freedom to make sacrifices and choices to get better skills and education to get a better job. Of course the system needs fixed, but you’ve been duped if you think our governing documents guaranteed these things.

As far as other countries, you can choose to look at their models. My favorite is Denmark, it’s a great country and one of the most happiest populations of people by certain studies. They have “free healthcare” and “free university”, however go ahead and google what their tax rate is. So the question is, is it free? They also have a different culture and no bill of rights.

LeineLodge

Nowhere did I indicate that healthcare is a right.

It seems obvious to me that a healthy, educated population should be a priority for all civilized populations. Just because we’re not required to provide something by the constitution doesn’t make it any less of a worthy goal.

I have lived under a socialist/universal health system and it’s not the nightmare (nor fix-all) solution that people try to paint it as. It’s simply a re-alignment of values and what a culture wants to spend their money on.

The argument always seems to come back around to “it’s too expensive” or “the quality of care will suck”. I’d argue that our healthcare is already too expensive in the U.S. (substitute premiums, copays, deductibles and co-insurance for taxes and you may find we’re not that far off already), and the quality of care that my family received from socialized doctors and facilities was equal to, or in many cases better than, the care we’ve seen in the U.S.

YMMV but IMO it’s a worthwhile pursuit that could be accomplished if we made it a priority.

TransWorld

This week Mick Jagger is having heart valve replacement. He is a British citizen. So he is getting it though the socialized medicine of the NHS? No, he is NY getting the surgery. Paying for it out of pocket.

Why? Most of the countries with socialized medicine control their costs by limiting costly treatment. Heart and cancer.

A friend of mine is from Canada. His grandfather, under the Canadian health system, was diagnosed with cancer. The oncologist said his 5 year survival rate was 70%. He went on the wait list, expected to start treatment (surgery, chemo, and radiation) in 15 months. Even though he was in good health otherwise, and was in his early 70s, he died 9 months after diagnosis. All he got was pain pills. Still waiting on treatment to start.

That is how government legislatures and officials control cost.

TED74

Can you give us a few more details? I'd like to convey this anecdote as evidence myself - that seems like the best way to evaluate complex stuff like health care.

"I heard about this guy's friend's dad's dad who didn't survive cancer strictly because of socialized medicine..."

Another anecdote... every Canadian I have asked in the last 5 years or so (perhaps half a dozen) would take their system over ours.

Good thing people don't go bankrupt here in the States fighting unsuccessful battles with cancer themselves... while we spend a trillion tax dollars in Afghanistan.