7 ms·

Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US It’s something every worker should be fighting tooth and nail for It would go a long way to breaking up the

Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US It’s something every worker should be fighting tooth and nail for It would go a long way to breaking up the neoliberal corporate hegemony Sadly, and regardless of education and political leanings, Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history. That it was all great 50 yrs ago without universal healthcare (when they were kids and not really paying attention) so of course it’s just fine to keep it that way. I encounter people of all ages and backgrounds with that notion kicking about, every day. Having lived and traveled the world, Americans are unique in their ignorance that the world was just as corrupt a generation ago. Now let’s go watch some TVLand and chill

Crontab 9y ago
> Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US I agree but the political will to do it is just not there. Not yet, anyway.
leggomylibro 9y ago
We need more than universal healthcare; we need straight-up universal care. The idea should be that periods of unemployment or uncertainty are not terrifying gray areas for an average person. If people felt comfortable that they would have support for finding better pastures from a shitty job, they'd be more likely to seek them. If they felt more confident that they had prospects after a layoff, they'd be more likely to look for alternate employment instead of sitting around in an abandoned factory town as it rots to the ground around them. I think it comes down to the fact that risk-taking cannot be a luxury, if we want the United States to remain a competitive and dynamic society. "Party of jobs?" How about a party for workers? After all, as many conservatives will happily tell you, true value comes from the heads, the hearts, and the hands of individuals. Why are we giving so much free stuff to Big Jobernment?
- Aloha 9y ago
  We need guaranteed minimum income, its the most freedom enhancing way of solving these problems. Give people cash, give them financial literacy training, the rest ought to work out okay.
  - Density 9y ago
    This solution also sidesteps the atrocious incentives of unemployment payouts. You might be making more from unemployment than by working a min wage job so why take it?
    - Aloha 9y ago
      Most states do not require you to take the first job that comes along - you are only required to take that if you have tried and cannot otherwise find work
- theseus7 9y ago
  > How about a party for workers? Possible principles for a workers party: - maximize after-rent and after-tax disposable income of workers - shift all taxes off of wages from labor and onto ground rent from private enclosures of land and natural resources - support a universal public savings account for all citizen residents over 20 - democratically divide and deposit all surplus natural resource rents directly into the universal savings accounts - have the Federal Reserve conduct monetary policy by setting the interest rate on the universal citizen savings accounts, rather than by buying up assets from investors This should increase the disposable income for a super-majority of workers by decreasing rent, making acquiring a house more affordable, making land for new small farms and businesses near competitive markets easier to obtain, increasing private savings to ensure workers have access to a large-runway of cash and high bargaining power while in between jobs, reducing the severity of economic depressions and recessions created by idle land speculation, and by directing capital flows away from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets and into productive businesses which will actually increase the demand for labor and raise wages.
  - ifhd 9y ago
    - Seize the means of production wait no, you aren't suggesting communism. I don't think switching to a property tax system is the way to go. Wouldn't it end up hurting people as you just see rents rise?
    - theseus7 9y ago
      I am advocating a land value tax, not a property tax. This is the most progressive tax possible as the incidence of the tax does not fall upon labor at all. > Wouldn't it end up hurting people as you just see rents rise? No, rents would not rise in proportion to the tax. Adding a tax as a carrying cost on a good of fixed supply such as land produces the opposite effect of a tax of goods and services. It increases the supply of available land and decreases prices because the tax makes land less attractive as a speculative investment and store of wealth. It encourages land holders to sell off any underutilized land being held for speculative purposes, thus increasing the supply of land available for actual use and improvement by workers, and lowering its price. The 'ground rent' collected by landholders is the surplus profit above what is necessary to bring the land into use. If no one paid ground rent to private landholders, the supply of land would still remain the same, and there would still be just as much land available for everyone to use. Confiscating private ground rent simply shifts this payment from private parties to the state, and the tax cannot be passed on to renters through higher prices at all. This increases the disposable income of a super-majority, because once all private ground is instead paid to the government for the provision of essential goods and services, all other taxes which fall upon the labor of workers, such as payroll and consumption taxes, can be eliminated.
- InitialLastName 9y ago
  Let's put it as fighting for the abolition of wage slavery.
rtx 9y ago
Government should have its own infra and hire medical professionals. They should leave the private sector alone.
- prklmn 9y ago
  We have that now, it's called the Veteran's Association (VA). It's kind of a mess.
  - gehwartzen 9y ago
    Out of curiosity I looked up and found that the estimated VA budget (in 2014) for "Hospital and Medical Care" was $55.4 billion. This covered ~22m Vets at the time. So a rough estimate for a national equivalent of VA care would be $800B/yr or maybe $850B-1T in todays dollars.
dmix 9y ago
> Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history. This shouldn't be about historical narratives or ideology, that's largely why public health insurance is dead-on-arrival in US politics. Both sides are terribly ideological about it and unrealistic as a result. The healthcare industry is already the most heavily regulated of all industries in the US. Saying it's been held back from government intervention is equally a myth as the US modern history as a free-market friendly place is a myth. This debate should be about whether certain market niches make the more sense as public entities. NOT as an example of "free markets" failing as a general rule and trying to sell the idea "you just need to accept that government knows best" (I'm paraphrasing). Rather it should be sold as an exception to the rule. The simple fact is government should not be in the vast majority of industry. But healthcare (specifically health insurance) has many unique and perverse incentives making it poorly suited for markets and the public alternative offers plenty of benefits to a society, including a capitalist society. Healthy workers are good workers, small business is less burdened with expensive healthcare packages, the morality of treating a seriously sick person who can't work then billing their family $10k, etc, etc. I believe there is still a good argument to be made in favour of public health insurance without alienating those who put their trust in markets. It's a unique exception and is already far from operating as a free market in the US. So why not bite the bullet and entirely subsidize it for everyone? That is a much smaller ask than the typical democrat "corporations are evil" pitch on this matter. Messaging is important.
- nightski 9y ago
  Wouldn't universal health care and public health insurance be completely different things? The primary issue with "insurance" as I see it is that it separates where the cost is generated from who pays it. This removes the responsibility and incentive to keep costs low. I'd hope if we had a universal health care system this would not be the case.
  - mjevans 9y ago
    I don't think the average person would understand those distinctions off-hand. The features of 'basic care' that I think everyone should have: * Everyone has it * It's only paid for by taxes * There are still systems in place for keeping costs low. * MOST doctors in the area should be options for care, assuming they're open. * /bad/ doctors (those who don't produce good results) shouldn't get to stay doctors. * The malpractice part of the equation is covered by a combination of * * social disability (care for the victim) and * * criminal justice (doctor is guilty of malpractice). For cost controls: * Government care/doctors (military docs) should be possible. * Mass bulk procurement / manufacture of basic supplies. * No more billing, lawyers fighting for/against costs, etc. * Some kind of auction bid for the services of doctors performing classes of common work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction I thought this was called a Dutch Auction, but it seems that what I'm thinking of is some kind of combination of second-price and other types of auction. In this case the buyer of services (the government) wants to buy a projection of X units within a given geographic region and wants the option of exceeding that by a factor of Y. X units would set the minimum cost paid out (doctors would be paid for the minimum work they're expected to do irrespective of need), but more work might be required. Disaster rates would be a third category of bid. The way that the cost for a procedure would be set would look something like this. * Geographic regions are defined. * Doctors/Clinics within all regions report their current and potential capacity * *as well as the rate they would prefer to charge for known services. * Expected rates of need for regions are calculated. Based on the above three points, the least expensive but still qualified bids are the winners, with the most expensive winning offer setting the price rates for that region, which all winners receive. If there is major discrepancy in price between areas, investigation of collusion and/or re-locating those who can to other areas for some procedures could be determined.
ThomPete 9y ago
You need to define what you mean with universal and what you mean with healthcare. Does it mean ex that you can't have private insurance and private hospitals? What does it cover? Who does it cover (Tourists, illegal immigrants?) and what does it cover? I have lived in both systems and have experienced pro and cons with both of theem.
tytytytytytytyt 9y ago
neoliberal corporate hegemony?
woolvalley 9y ago
Yes, because corporate & state hegemony is so much less in countries with universal healthcare /s Universal healthcare is a good thing, but it won't really change things in that way.
JBlue42 9y ago
What's a worker to do? I live in a blue city in a blue state and vote for the blue people that say they're going to help out with this. They are not the majority and the other party are hell-bent on destroying what little advancements have been made. Not to mention, it's pretty hard to reshape ideas that have been adopted or bred into the culture over the years. Health care should not be tied to employment but it's been that way for years with a lot of large incentives to keep it that way. As an unemployed person, it sucks and you're looked down upon as it being your fault instead of a working for a poorly-run company or something else. You're not a victim, you're a perpetrator with a flaw. An undesirable. That's the beauty of the 'real' Christian society of America - it's all black and white, good and evil. It's God's grace that they have their jobs and some flaw in your that you don't. It's not about luck, or business downturn, etc.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Maybe reply instead of downvoting folks.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> It would go a long way to breaking up the neoliberal corporate hegemony No, it wouldn't. Neoliberal corporate hegemony rules all of the developed world, all of which, except the US, has universal healthcare.

Crontab 9y ago

> Exactly why we need universal healthcare in the US I agree but the political will to do it is just not there. Not yet, anyway.

leggomylibro 9y ago

We need more than universal healthcare; we need straight-up universal care. The idea should be that periods of unemployment or uncertainty are not terrifying gray areas for an average person. If people felt comfortable that they would have support for finding better pastures from a shitty job, they'd be more likely to seek them. If they felt more confident that they had prospects after a layoff, they'd be more likely to look for alternate employment instead of sitting around in an abandoned factory town as it rots to the ground around them. I think it comes down to the fact that risk-taking cannot be a luxury, if we want the United States to remain a competitive and dynamic society. "Party of jobs?" How about a party for workers? After all, as many conservatives will happily tell you, true value comes from the heads, the hearts, and the hands of individuals. Why are we giving so much free stuff to Big Jobernment?

Aloha 9y ago
We need guaranteed minimum income, its the most freedom enhancing way of solving these problems. Give people cash, give them financial literacy training, the rest ought to work out okay.
- Density 9y ago
  This solution also sidesteps the atrocious incentives of unemployment payouts. You might be making more from unemployment than by working a min wage job so why take it?
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Most states do not require you to take the first job that comes along - you are only required to take that if you have tried and cannot otherwise find work
theseus7 9y ago
> How about a party for workers? Possible principles for a workers party: - maximize after-rent and after-tax disposable income of workers - shift all taxes off of wages from labor and onto ground rent from private enclosures of land and natural resources - support a universal public savings account for all citizen residents over 20 - democratically divide and deposit all surplus natural resource rents directly into the universal savings accounts - have the Federal Reserve conduct monetary policy by setting the interest rate on the universal citizen savings accounts, rather than by buying up assets from investors This should increase the disposable income for a super-majority of workers by decreasing rent, making acquiring a house more affordable, making land for new small farms and businesses near competitive markets easier to obtain, increasing private savings to ensure workers have access to a large-runway of cash and high bargaining power while in between jobs, reducing the severity of economic depressions and recessions created by idle land speculation, and by directing capital flows away from mortgages and mortgage-backed assets and into productive businesses which will actually increase the demand for labor and raise wages.
- ifhd 9y ago
  - Seize the means of production wait no, you aren't suggesting communism. I don't think switching to a property tax system is the way to go. Wouldn't it end up hurting people as you just see rents rise?
  - theseus7 9y ago
    I am advocating a land value tax, not a property tax. This is the most progressive tax possible as the incidence of the tax does not fall upon labor at all. > Wouldn't it end up hurting people as you just see rents rise? No, rents would not rise in proportion to the tax. Adding a tax as a carrying cost on a good of fixed supply such as land produces the opposite effect of a tax of goods and services. It increases the supply of available land and decreases prices because the tax makes land less attractive as a speculative investment and store of wealth. It encourages land holders to sell off any underutilized land being held for speculative purposes, thus increasing the supply of land available for actual use and improvement by workers, and lowering its price. The 'ground rent' collected by landholders is the surplus profit above what is necessary to bring the land into use. If no one paid ground rent to private landholders, the supply of land would still remain the same, and there would still be just as much land available for everyone to use. Confiscating private ground rent simply shifts this payment from private parties to the state, and the tax cannot be passed on to renters through higher prices at all. This increases the disposable income of a super-majority, because once all private ground is instead paid to the government for the provision of essential goods and services, all other taxes which fall upon the labor of workers, such as payroll and consumption taxes, can be eliminated.
InitialLastName 9y ago
Let's put it as fighting for the abolition of wage slavery.

rtx 9y ago

Government should have its own infra and hire medical professionals. They should leave the private sector alone.

prklmn 9y ago
We have that now, it's called the Veteran's Association (VA). It's kind of a mess.
- gehwartzen 9y ago
  Out of curiosity I looked up and found that the estimated VA budget (in 2014) for "Hospital and Medical Care" was $55.4 billion. This covered ~22m Vets at the time. So a rough estimate for a national equivalent of VA care would be $800B/yr or maybe $850B-1T in todays dollars.

dmix 9y ago

> Americans seem in love with a fictional account of the countries history. This shouldn't be about historical narratives or ideology, that's largely why public health insurance is dead-on-arrival in US politics. Both sides are terribly ideological about it and unrealistic as a result. The healthcare industry is already the most heavily regulated of all industries in the US. Saying it's been held back from government intervention is equally a myth as the US modern history as a free-market friendly place is a myth. This debate should be about whether certain market niches make the more sense as public entities. NOT as an example of "free markets" failing as a general rule and trying to sell the idea "you just need to accept that government knows best" (I'm paraphrasing). Rather it should be sold as an exception to the rule. The simple fact is government should not be in the vast majority of industry. But healthcare (specifically health insurance) has many unique and perverse incentives making it poorly suited for markets and the public alternative offers plenty of benefits to a society, including a capitalist society. Healthy workers are good workers, small business is less burdened with expensive healthcare packages, the morality of treating a seriously sick person who can't work then billing their family $10k, etc, etc. I believe there is still a good argument to be made in favour of public health insurance without alienating those who put their trust in markets. It's a unique exception and is already far from operating as a free market in the US. So why not bite the bullet and entirely subsidize it for everyone? That is a much smaller ask than the typical democrat "corporations are evil" pitch on this matter. Messaging is important.

nightski 9y ago
Wouldn't universal health care and public health insurance be completely different things? The primary issue with "insurance" as I see it is that it separates where the cost is generated from who pays it. This removes the responsibility and incentive to keep costs low. I'd hope if we had a universal health care system this would not be the case.
- mjevans 9y ago
  I don't think the average person would understand those distinctions off-hand. The features of 'basic care' that I think everyone should have: * Everyone has it * It's only paid for by taxes * There are still systems in place for keeping costs low. * MOST doctors in the area should be options for care, assuming they're open. * /bad/ doctors (those who don't produce good results) shouldn't get to stay doctors. * The malpractice part of the equation is covered by a combination of * * social disability (care for the victim) and * * criminal justice (doctor is guilty of malpractice). For cost controls: * Government care/doctors (military docs) should be possible. * Mass bulk procurement / manufacture of basic supplies. * No more billing, lawyers fighting for/against costs, etc. * Some kind of auction bid for the services of doctors performing classes of common work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction I thought this was called a Dutch Auction, but it seems that what I'm thinking of is some kind of combination of second-price and other types of auction. In this case the buyer of services (the government) wants to buy a projection of X units within a given geographic region and wants the option of exceeding that by a factor of Y. X units would set the minimum cost paid out (doctors would be paid for the minimum work they're expected to do irrespective of need), but more work might be required. Disaster rates would be a third category of bid. The way that the cost for a procedure would be set would look something like this. * Geographic regions are defined. * Doctors/Clinics within all regions report their current and potential capacity * *as well as the rate they would prefer to charge for known services. * Expected rates of need for regions are calculated. Based on the above three points, the least expensive but still qualified bids are the winners, with the most expensive winning offer setting the price rates for that region, which all winners receive. If there is major discrepancy in price between areas, investigation of collusion and/or re-locating those who can to other areas for some procedures could be determined.

ThomPete 9y ago

You need to define what you mean with universal and what you mean with healthcare. Does it mean ex that you can't have private insurance and private hospitals? What does it cover? Who does it cover (Tourists, illegal immigrants?) and what does it cover? I have lived in both systems and have experienced pro and cons with both of theem.

tytytytytytytyt 9y ago

neoliberal corporate hegemony?

woolvalley 9y ago

Yes, because corporate & state hegemony is so much less in countries with universal healthcare /s Universal healthcare is a good thing, but it won't really change things in that way.

JBlue42 9y ago

What's a worker to do? I live in a blue city in a blue state and vote for the blue people that say they're going to help out with this. They are not the majority and the other party are hell-bent on destroying what little advancements have been made. Not to mention, it's pretty hard to reshape ideas that have been adopted or bred into the culture over the years. Health care should not be tied to employment but it's been that way for years with a lot of large incentives to keep it that way. As an unemployed person, it sucks and you're looked down upon as it being your fault instead of a working for a poorly-run company or something else. You're not a victim, you're a perpetrator with a flaw. An undesirable. That's the beauty of the 'real' Christian society of America - it's all black and white, good and evil. It's God's grace that they have their jobs and some flaw in your that you don't. It's not about luck, or business downturn, etc.

JBlue42 9y ago
Maybe reply instead of downvoting folks.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> It would go a long way to breaking up the neoliberal corporate hegemony No, it wouldn't. Neoliberal corporate hegemony rules all of the developed world, all of which, except the US, has universal healthcare.