15 ms·
As an outside observer, sure, you don't strictly speaking need them in some theoretical America, but in the America I see there's a large group of people who do
by martythemaniak 7y ago
As an outside observer, sure, you don't strictly speaking need them in some theoretical America, but in the America I see there's a large group of people who do not believe government can or should do this work and will work very actively to make it happen. The last bit is crucial.
Suppose that you are disappointed that Obamacare did not contain a public option. Suppose that Obamacare did contain this provision in the law, it would most likely be implemented the way the cfpb was. The cfpb is great, except how good it is depends on how good the government in place is. If there's people in government that want it to fail it will simply fail. Thus merely incorporating the public option into law is not enough to have to have a dedicated political body that wants to make it work. I don't think that's the case in America.
I guess what I'm saying is, the specificity of the law doesn't seem to be as important as peoples dedication to making things work
- decebalus1 7y ago> I see there's a large group of people who do not believe government can or should do this work and will work very actively to make it happen do you have any numbers to back that up? There's a very 'vocal' minority holding that opinion but don't assume that group is large enough to matter when it comes to voting for/against it.
- smacktoward 7y agoYou can see Gallup's historical polling results on this question here: https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx Since 2000, the percentage of respondents who have said that providing healthcare coverage "is not the responsibility of the federal government" has fluctuated from a low in 2006 of 28% to a high in 2013 of 56%. (In their most recent survey, it's 42%.)
- dboreham 7y agoI've always wondered why people seem to think it should be "the responsibility of your employer". As someone who didn't grow up in the US, who is now a US business owner, it seems totally insane but everyone just nods..
- vadym909 7y agoThis is the crux of the problem. Sometime ago- the wise people in power decided to push the responsibility of medical coverage onto employers. Funny they chose that instead of housing or food- but thats what it is. Now everyone has to find a job that has health benefits- but employers are finding ways around it
- didgeoridoo 7y agoThat’s not what happened. The federal government capped wages during WWII, and in response the unions threatened to strike, which would have shut down the war effort. To mollify them, the health insurance that unions had negotiated as a fringe benefit from their employers was temporarily made tax-free (normally you pay taxes on the cash value of fringe benefits). After the war, it was supposed to go back to normal — but people had gotten used to not paying taxes for their insurance benefits, and it became politically impossible to go back to the way things were pre-war.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- pushpoll 7y agoNot only that, but there's also the problem of how you ask people the questions. When you ask, "Do you think we should have socialized medicine" a large percentage will freak out and say "NO! We don't want socialism here!" But if you ask them, "Should we defund Medicare?" they'll also loudly scream "NO! We need our Medicare to stay alive!"
- Clubber 7y agoNevermind ..
- tialaramex 7y ago> Just pass a law making it illegal for teens to smoke Did anywhere do that? I see laws making it illegal to _sell_ cigarettes to teenagers, and I see laws making it illegal to _advertise_ cigarettes in a way that will attract teenagers but I don't see any laws that jail teenagers for smoking.
- pranjalv123 7y agohttps://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/suppl_1/i6 https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/suppl_1/i6 This goes into more detail - yes, in some states it is illegal for teens to possess tobacco, but the penalty is usually something like a small fine, or you have to attend a class.
- pranjalv123 7y agoNo teenager has been to jail for smoking a cigarette. Underage possession laws have penalties like (usually small) fines. People might go to jail for selling tobacco to minors, but that is different!
- Clubber 7y agoNevermind ..
- gnode 7y agoNot all legislation has the citizenry as its subject, or creates criminal offences. Legislation can also bind the actions of government, or establish rights which must then be fulfilled by a government. Public healthcare is typically not provided by creating criminal offences for citizens.
- Clubber 7y agoNevermind ..
- digikata 7y agoA majority of voters of both parties support Medicare for All policy proposals. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-percent-of-americans-support-medicare-for-all https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/403248-poll-seventy-pe... Voters were split on the ACA mandated carriage of private insurance.
- marcusverus 7y agoI have my doubts. The term ‘Medicare for All’ is a fairly new term that has only been exposed to public discourse (of the sort that reaches the average unengaged voter) within the bubble of Democrat primaries. It’ll be instructive to see how these numbers stand up to scrutiny during the general election—assuming the Democrats elect someone who supports it as advertised.
- digikata 7y agoIt’s pretty well documented by political studies the delta between what voters broadly want and what political leadership in the US generally delivers. That poll covered Democratic, Republican and independent voters. Independents being the unorganized third party in similar size to both other main parties.
- beat 7y agoOn the plus side, the recent Democratic debates have delved into the subject in impressive detail, with candidates grilling each other over differences, as well as the moderators. It's a remarkably nuanced discussion within the party. Not that most voters care about nuance, but for those who do, the information is there.
- mattmcknight 7y agoIn addition, the "Medicare for All" branding is deceptive, as the plan on offer is nothing like Medicare.
- dv_dt 7y agoSome candidates are trying to jump onto the brand without supporting the core proposals, but the Sanders/Jayapal senate and house bills for Medicare for All are the core proposals by which the others should be judged.
- mikeash 7y agoThose same people oppose all sorts of existing social programs too, and those programs continue to function anyway. The CFPB was a special case as a small agency with little visible impact that few people even knew existed. Messing with people's health care is quite another matter. See also: “keep your government hands off my Medicare.”
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago> Those same people oppose all sorts of existing social programs too, and those programs continue to function anyway. Sorta, barely. When I was unemployed a few years ago, it took me months to get basic state medical coverage in Kentucky. I had to spend hours waiting in line at the office because the phone service simply didn't work, and then had to jump through endless bureaucratic hoops. As a single guy who's fairly bureaucracy-savvy, I eventually managed it. If I'd been a harried and undereducated single mom, I might never have made it through. That was the second time I had to sign up for Kentucky Medicaid. Five years previous, it was a breeze. Then a Republican governor cut funding to the bone, and now it's awful. That's not an accident.
- kevin_thibedeau 7y agoMost Americans vote with their feet to avoid this sort of governance.
- PhasmaFelis 7y agoThe kind of people who need Medicaid don't always have the luxury of relocating themselves and their family to another state.
- mywittyname 7y agoFor better or worse, those same anti-government people do functionally support social programs from which they directly benefit. They may pay lip service to their ideological stance on the subject, but the money is green and they will happily continue to take what they are "entitled" to. Their major opposition is to social programs they don't benefit from.
- chrisgd 7y agoExactly. Which is so strange when you see which states are against government involvement and which states need the most government assistance.
- Redoubts 7y agoMaybe we should take them up on their offer.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoMy neighbor is a good example. He is on Medicare but he is violently opposed to socialized health care and Medicare for All.
- metalliqaz 7y agoYour neighbor is an asshole.
- antisthenes 7y agoNever attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
- erikpukinskis 7y agoYeah but malice is a thing too.
- Tarq0n 7y agoThe Netherlands has mandatory private insurance and it works well for them. The insurers are heavily regulated though.
- mikepurvis 7y ago"Mandatory" is the key thing, though. The system doesn't work if all the healthy people opt out until they have a crisis and show up uninsured at the emergency room. See: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/how-repeal-of-the-individual-mandate-and-expansion-of-loosely-regulated-plans-are-affecting-2019-premiums/ https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/how-repeal-of-t...
- m0zg 7y agoDo the Netherlands also have doctors who expect to make $300k-$1M/yr and drugs that cost 10x what they do in any other country?
- wil421 7y agoNo but they are high up on a recent list of doctors salaries[1]. US is #3 and the top spots are the usual European countries for top salaries. [1]https://www.careeraddict.com/top-5-countries-with-the-highest-paid-salaries-for-doctors https://www.careeraddict.com/top-5-countries-with-the-highes...
- m0zg 7y agoBefore clicking on the link, I guessed Switzerland would be ahead of the US, and I was right. Switzerland has ACA-like mandatory insurance that's even more expensive than ACA. Notice how for the US the article doesn't even mention the upper bound for specialists. That's because there is none, and they expect that. GPs are quite affordable, if it was just the GPs I wouldn't mind paying them $200-300 directly for a visit. But the specialists can really get you crying for mercy, especially if there's no insurance company between you and them. I broke a leg a few years ago, and if I did not have insurance, the cost to me would be $55K (probably more, this doesn't count the follow-up visits). Surgery alone was $30K+ for about 2 hours of work, not including cost of anesthesia ($5K). Insurance got the total down to about $7K, which is still a lot of money for a relatively run-of-the-mill surgery. Cost to me was my deductible: $1K.