3 ms·

You are missing two important things here. Homogenous and small. These countries are homogenous which also means politically. You will be hard pressed to find

You are missing two important things here. Homogenous and small. These countries are homogenous which also means politically. You will be hard pressed to find any real fundamental political differences between parties in the scandinavian countries. They are all on the left side of Sanders. Furthermore, it matters quite a lot that you are dealing with a fairly limited population who all suffers from more or less the same issues because they genetically are alike. And again keep in mind the Scandinavian countries have budgets which means that you can't always get the treatment you want/need even if you had the money. Again I am not saying the US system is good it's obviously not. But a single-payer system in the US just isn't realistic or attractive for that matter. The problem in the US is the price, but that price is held up artifically not because of the market. So we need to remove the things that make the price go up that hight. That IMO would be a much better approach than trying to mimick scandinavian countries as great as they are for their population (but definitely not without it's problems)

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Again, I don't see the size as anything but an excuse against it. Surely in the US, it would have to be adapted to different areas' populations. I'm not convinced Indiana is so much less homogenous than, say, Sweden. They are definitely not all on the left side of Sanders. And again keep in mind the Scandinavian countries have budgets which means that you can't always get the treatment you want/need even if you had the money. I don't know where you get this sort of information. I will never not be able to afford my medication. I broke my arm and got immediate, affordable treatment and had paid time off work even though my job was seasonal. In the US, with insurance, I would have struggled, not only with hospital bills, but with work. If you have an issue that they cannot treat in the country, you can travel outside of the country for treatment. Even if you are poor and have no money - the state does that. There are private hospitals and clinics around - if you have money, you can use them. They aren't always that much more expensive and the waiting period for non-emergency stuff is less. The bottom line is that you are against a single payer system. That's fine, be honest, but please make sure your actual facts are facts instead of things people hear.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  You know nothing about me. It sounds like you don't want to see the problem which makes it hard to have any discussion. The size is a problem given that you would need to be able to offer consistent care across the nation this is exactly the kind of problems that single payer systems deal with. They are an actual problem in the scandinavian countries and these countries are small. Federal is federal. I am not against a single-payer system. I grew up with one as I am Danish so I want a single-payer system. Especially as I have been having 2 melanomas and might likely get more and live in the US. I just wont work here and I won't be able to get the kind of care that I get now. I know both systems pretty well that's where I get that information from I been living in both and experienced both.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

Again, I don't see the size as anything but an excuse against it. Surely in the US, it would have to be adapted to different areas' populations. I'm not convinced Indiana is so much less homogenous than, say, Sweden. They are definitely not all on the left side of Sanders. And again keep in mind the Scandinavian countries have budgets which means that you can't always get the treatment you want/need even if you had the money. I don't know where you get this sort of information. I will never not be able to afford my medication. I broke my arm and got immediate, affordable treatment and had paid time off work even though my job was seasonal. In the US, with insurance, I would have struggled, not only with hospital bills, but with work. If you have an issue that they cannot treat in the country, you can travel outside of the country for treatment. Even if you are poor and have no money - the state does that. There are private hospitals and clinics around - if you have money, you can use them. They aren't always that much more expensive and the waiting period for non-emergency stuff is less. The bottom line is that you are against a single payer system. That's fine, be honest, but please make sure your actual facts are facts instead of things people hear.

ThomPete 8y ago
You know nothing about me. It sounds like you don't want to see the problem which makes it hard to have any discussion. The size is a problem given that you would need to be able to offer consistent care across the nation this is exactly the kind of problems that single payer systems deal with. They are an actual problem in the scandinavian countries and these countries are small. Federal is federal. I am not against a single-payer system. I grew up with one as I am Danish so I want a single-payer system. Especially as I have been having 2 melanomas and might likely get more and live in the US. I just wont work here and I won't be able to get the kind of care that I get now. I know both systems pretty well that's where I get that information from I been living in both and experienced both.