4 ms·

>but I think we as a nation (US) can do better. No, we can't. If we could, we would. Things are like this because we want them to be like this: it's reflecte

• cj 7y ago
  People evolve. So do their opinions and beliefs. Just because Universal Healthcare didn't catch on the first time doesn't mean it's dead forever. It'll happen eventually. Maybe in 4 years, maybe in 40.
  • magduf 7y ago
    Maybe you're willing to wait 40 years for people to evolve, but I'm not. There's better places to live.
• briandear 7y ago
  As an American voter, I definitely don’t want this. Health services, like any economic good, are scarce. I’d rather have rationing through the market then rationing via government (and yes, there has to be rationing; it’s not an unlimited good.) Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly, but under a government system, everyone is equally limited in their access to care (i.e. waiting lists.) Someone who provides significant value to society waits in line behind a person who doesn’t provide much value — that isn’t good for society. It’s unsaid because it’s incendiary, but all people in society aren’t equally important to that society: an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier. With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote.
  • saagarjha 7y ago
    > With price-based rationing, those that generate more value have easier access to scarce care resources than those who generate less value. No, it just means that people who are rich can afford healthcare and those who aren’t can’t. > It’s logical, but politically tough because those that generate little value outnumber those that produce high value — and those low value people vote. Should they not?
  • greesil 7y ago
    It's not a XOR proposition. That's why it's called "the public option". If you want alternative health care to what's provided by the government, you can pay for it.
  • allday 7y ago
    Maybe some poor don’t get the best care quickly an electrical engineer is more useful than an unemployed cashier low value people Well, I mean, it's rare for someone to be so upfront with their blatant sociopathy, so thanks for that I guess. It’s logical ah, that ol' dogwhistle
    • jtms 7y ago
      Ad hominem. Attack the idea not the person. Just because someone has a different view than you doesn’t make them a sociopath.
    • NikolaNovak 7y ago
      While I disagree with briandear, I don't find it sociopathic. (It's like the PG said - be aware of what the Taboos/unspeakable ideas are in society.) I live in Canada as an immigrant, love it here, would never move, and USA health/insurance system frankly baffles me, even having lived there for a year previously. Don't even remotely understand why people put up with sheer complexity and opaqueness. But I appreciate people like the GP [briandear] that eloquently and clearly help me understand alternative perspectives different to my own. I think it's a very valid, very core discussion of values and goals: is it equal care for all, or do we prioritize it? And I agree with GP [briandear] that shying away from this core discussion muddles the issue. Sometimes it feels like USA builds ever more complex systems to mask the goals and direction of its health care system, rather than a simple system that would fess up and do whatever it's meant to do efficiently :-/