3 ms·

You must have missed the most recent round of GOP talking points, where they were suggesting we write off the lives of people in high-risk groups so everyone el

You must have missed the most recent round of GOP talking points, where they were suggesting we write off the lives of people in high-risk groups so everyone else can get back to work. See https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/akw87e/texas-lt-governor-thinks-old-people-are-happy-to-sacrifice-themselves-to-coronavirus-to-save-the-economy&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwizkbn-t7joAhXkhXIEHcksB8oQFjAAegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw1rvr1iotNwYKFbXr09mhGV https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.vice.com/en_us/arti..., https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fox-news-contributor-on-putting-lives-of-old-people-at-risk-to-save-the-economy-its-an-entirely-reasonable-viewpoint-2020-03-25 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fox-news-contributor-on-pu..., https://www.mediaite.com/news/glenn-beck-issues-call-for-older-americans-to-go-back-to-work-even-if-we-all-get-sick-id-rather-die-than-kill-the-country/ https://www.mediaite.com/news/glenn-beck-issues-call-for-old... for a few examples.

smcl 7y ago
The same party that has been scaremongering against socialised healthcare saying it involves "death panels".
- tropo 7y ago
  The only thing untrue is that we'd officially call them something else. You don't have "death panels" if you call them "community wellness committees". There is no economy anywhere in the world that can support an infinite demand for healthcare. We keep inventing new healthcare too, so it only gets worse. There will be limits to healthcare, though we can lie to ourselves about that. If we don't place a price on life, then 100% of our money goes to healthcare and then we still end up dead in the end. With socialised healthcare, the politically viable solution is to promise more than can be delivered. This causes waiting lists. Waiting lists for "free" (tax funded) care will grow as long as demand exceeds supply. The supply is limited by resources. The demand is only limited because people die while waiting for treatment. There is a huge opportunity for corruption and bias here. Instead of a simple waiting list, we can move people ahead if they are politically favored. It's all simpler and less corrupt if we let market prices sort out how we wish to prioritize the care of one person, the care of another person, and all the other possible economic activity.
  - smcl 7y ago
    But by that logic all private healthcare providers like in the US are death panels? The rest of your comment was a wild ride. You're inventing a fictional socialised healthcare system (overwhelmed, hopelessly overbudget and reliant on political connections for treatment) and then declaring that some fictional market is better. But we don't need to invent fictional systems to compare and see whether this is true - both of these exist in reality. And in reality US's "markets" comprise a healthcare system which is infamous for being horrendously unfair, overpriced and corrupt. You are free to pick any developed country to compare to - it won't matter, the ones with better outcomes and lower expenditures will be those with socialised healthcare.
    - tropo 7y ago
      Private healthcare providers in the USA are not like that. The hospitals are normally glad to accept your money in exchange for treatment. You can go elsewhere if you wish. If your insurance company denies payment, you can find some other way to pay. Canada prohibits the existence of private healthcare providers. The only reason people aren't condemned to die on waiting lists is that nearly all Canadians can easily travel to the USA when they are desperate for treatment. Canada saves money because people are using their own funds to purchase treatment in the USA. The UK will actually prohibit people from seeking care in other countries. I guess it would be an embarrassment if you got care elsewhere, so instead you must die. There, that's two developed countries. I don't wish to research every damn country in the world, and you said "free to pick any developed country to compare to - it won't matter". I picked them because they are English-speaking and relatively large. I'm not interested in generic "better outcomes and lower expenditures". That just means that everybody gets substandard ("cost effective") care. I want to live in a country where a person over the age of 80 can get an expensive treatment to improve quality of life. I know a person who did: first about $80,000 in drugs for hepatitis, then a hip replacement. Neither would happen in a country with socialized healthcare because she wouldn't be worth the money. They'd estimate something like "quality adjusted years of life", determine the value is low, and give her some pain pills.
      - deleted 7y ago
EvanAnderson 7y ago
My perception of registered Republicans (not so much people who might incidentally vote Republican) is that the average age is pretty high. I wonder how these viewpoints sit with the older party members.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  I suspect that the answer in this case is pretty simple. You have the interests of Republican voters (who, yes, do skew older) on one side of the issue, and the interests of Republican funders, who are generally big business types who are losing money every day their businesses are idle, on the other. And the funders won.

smcl 7y ago

The same party that has been scaremongering against socialised healthcare saying it involves "death panels".

tropo 7y ago
The only thing untrue is that we'd officially call them something else. You don't have "death panels" if you call them "community wellness committees". There is no economy anywhere in the world that can support an infinite demand for healthcare. We keep inventing new healthcare too, so it only gets worse. There will be limits to healthcare, though we can lie to ourselves about that. If we don't place a price on life, then 100% of our money goes to healthcare and then we still end up dead in the end. With socialised healthcare, the politically viable solution is to promise more than can be delivered. This causes waiting lists. Waiting lists for "free" (tax funded) care will grow as long as demand exceeds supply. The supply is limited by resources. The demand is only limited because people die while waiting for treatment. There is a huge opportunity for corruption and bias here. Instead of a simple waiting list, we can move people ahead if they are politically favored. It's all simpler and less corrupt if we let market prices sort out how we wish to prioritize the care of one person, the care of another person, and all the other possible economic activity.
- smcl 7y ago
  But by that logic all private healthcare providers like in the US are death panels? The rest of your comment was a wild ride. You're inventing a fictional socialised healthcare system (overwhelmed, hopelessly overbudget and reliant on political connections for treatment) and then declaring that some fictional market is better. But we don't need to invent fictional systems to compare and see whether this is true - both of these exist in reality. And in reality US's "markets" comprise a healthcare system which is infamous for being horrendously unfair, overpriced and corrupt. You are free to pick any developed country to compare to - it won't matter, the ones with better outcomes and lower expenditures will be those with socialised healthcare.
  - tropo 7y ago
    Private healthcare providers in the USA are not like that. The hospitals are normally glad to accept your money in exchange for treatment. You can go elsewhere if you wish. If your insurance company denies payment, you can find some other way to pay. Canada prohibits the existence of private healthcare providers. The only reason people aren't condemned to die on waiting lists is that nearly all Canadians can easily travel to the USA when they are desperate for treatment. Canada saves money because people are using their own funds to purchase treatment in the USA. The UK will actually prohibit people from seeking care in other countries. I guess it would be an embarrassment if you got care elsewhere, so instead you must die. There, that's two developed countries. I don't wish to research every damn country in the world, and you said "free to pick any developed country to compare to - it won't matter". I picked them because they are English-speaking and relatively large. I'm not interested in generic "better outcomes and lower expenditures". That just means that everybody gets substandard ("cost effective") care. I want to live in a country where a person over the age of 80 can get an expensive treatment to improve quality of life. I know a person who did: first about $80,000 in drugs for hepatitis, then a hip replacement. Neither would happen in a country with socialized healthcare because she wouldn't be worth the money. They'd estimate something like "quality adjusted years of life", determine the value is low, and give her some pain pills.
    - deleted 7y ago

EvanAnderson 7y ago

My perception of registered Republicans (not so much people who might incidentally vote Republican) is that the average age is pretty high. I wonder how these viewpoints sit with the older party members.

smacktoward 7y ago
I suspect that the answer in this case is pretty simple. You have the interests of Republican voters (who, yes, do skew older) on one side of the issue, and the interests of Republican funders, who are generally big business types who are losing money every day their businesses are idle, on the other. And the funders won.