4 ms·

>Because they are bought and paid by the same people profiting off the system. I know broad sweeping characterizations feel good and are easy, but I can't help

>Because they are bought and paid by the same people profiting off the system. I know broad sweeping characterizations feel good and are easy, but I can't help but feel they help those taking the most money from lobbyists hide from view. And I can't help but feel they encourage giving up entirely on government and voting in outsiders regardless of their actual qualifications, who double down on the problems instead of fixing them. It takes a lot more effort to name some specifics either rules or people, but broad sweeping statements don't usually help.

34679 6y ago
Sometimes broad problems demand broad statements. We could get into the specifics of the two-party duopoly and the legacy of kowtowing to healthcare and health insurance industries, but the examples are far too numerous and stretch back far too long. I will provide two examples, one from each party, so as to be less divisive: Affordable Care Act: Democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. They could've passed any bill they wanted. Instead of medicare for all or similar, they passed a bill that required everyone to purchase a 3rd party product called insurance. The overhead and profits of the insurance industry add to the cost of actual healthcare. National Health Planning and Resources Development Act: Nixon signed this in 1974. It mandates that anyone trying to build a healthcare facility apply for and receive a Certificate of Need. This creates local monopolies for existing healthcare facilities by eliminating new competition. It's a blatant form of protectionism.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  To pass ACA the Democrats needed 60 out of 100 seats in the Senate and they had 58. To pass it they caucused with two independents, and one of them, Joe Lieberman, specifically would not vote for it if it had a public option.
  - 34679 6y ago
    They needed 60 to avoid a filibuster. A filibuster would've required Republicans to obstruct the vote by speaking continuously on why Americans don't deserve healthcare. Democrats had them backed in a corner. All they had to do was propose a bill that benefited everyday Americans instead of corporate backers and they would've made the Republicans look like absolute fools for speaking endlessly against it. A filibuster only lasts as long as the opposition keeps debate open.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      The Overton window wasn't that far left in 2009. A good deal of the Obamacare messaging was focused around telling middle class Americans that no, they would not lose their existing employer-provided coverage. And even if you could pull out all the data that would show that Medicare for All benefited people more than existing coverage no one would've believed it.
pessimizer 6y ago
> I can't help but feel they help those taking the most money from lobbyists hide from view. If everybody takes money from an industry, no one has to hide because it will never be pointed out. The only way you can look bad is in comparison to outsiders, and many voters automatically disqualify outsiders as not being good enough to be insiders. We filter for bad apples, then call people who point out that we get exactly the results we would expect cynics and nihilists. > It takes a lot more effort to name some specifics either rules or people You can literally google who takes the most money from the industry. It's not a secret, and sunlight doesn't kill it.
an_opabinia 6y ago
> voting in outsiders regardless of their actual qualifications, who double down on the problems instead of fixing them While the spirit of what you’re saying is right, the media and the Democratic National Committee portray Bernie Sanders as an outsider, even though he’s been in politics for decades. The difficulty for lobbyists to influence him is well publicized and considered mostly true. His proposal to fix this specific problem - Medicare for all as opposed to free market healthcare pricing - is certainly consistent, cogent, and likely to work, even if you disagree it is the best one. It goes to show that the original comment you are reacting to many not be as partisan as it appears. It may simply be reactionary.
- nine_k 6y ago
  I have friends in Netherlands, where "medicare for all" is reality. What you get for it is doctors prescribing you paracetamol for most ailments, after you waited for a week or two for your turn to visit the doctor. Or with doctors not treating your chronic and deteriorating condition for months and years, because they only have the resources to treat such a condition in those who already have it much worse. I'm talking about real cases my friends faced. Despite that, Netherlands' health care is considered the best in Europe [1]. Maybe in your book it's strictly better than the current US system, but I suspect there's still room for improvement. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands#International_comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands#...
  - GordonS 6y ago
    Sounds a lot like the UK. Healthcare here seems to be very optimised for the most common ailments, and you're basically screwed for anything else unless you strike it lucky with a good doctor. For example, here your typical endocrinologist will easily be able to treat diabetes and hypothyroidism - but will tell you you're a crackpot if it's anything else. Similarly neurologists will only easily treat brain tumours, etc. Also, doctors and "specialists" are extremely conservative. Many seem to have had zero training since they left medical school 30 year ago, and never so much as glanced at research since then. Many won't prescribe treatments they haven't prescribed before (what the hell kind of logic is that?!). Almost all will prescribe based on cost before anything else - let's say there are 4 treatment options, A, B, C and D. D is most likely to work, and least likely to have negative side effects, but costs £1k/year; A costs £5, is not particularly likely to work, and has a small chance of destroying your life through negative side effects - yep, let's go with option A first! Oh, and unless it's cancer, you'll have to wait for treatment. A long time - you'll often wait several months after a referral from your GP, and then 6 months between each appointment after that. There are supposed to be maximum waiting list times mandated by law, but they game the system - "yes, I realise you've been waiting more than 3 months, but that was just for our pre-waiting list!" It's a good enough system for a lot of people, but also badly fails a lot of people too. Source: I'm a Brit with rare and chronic medical conditions, and had the misfortune to suffer badly at the hands of several arms of the NHS. It took 20 years to get a diagnosis for one of my conditions.
cmurf 6y ago
You've just made a bunch of broad sweeping statements, and they are based on feelings not evidence.

34679 6y ago

Sometimes broad problems demand broad statements. We could get into the specifics of the two-party duopoly and the legacy of kowtowing to healthcare and health insurance industries, but the examples are far too numerous and stretch back far too long. I will provide two examples, one from each party, so as to be less divisive: Affordable Care Act: Democrats controlled the house, senate, and presidency. They could've passed any bill they wanted. Instead of medicare for all or similar, they passed a bill that required everyone to purchase a 3rd party product called insurance. The overhead and profits of the insurance industry add to the cost of actual healthcare. National Health Planning and Resources Development Act: Nixon signed this in 1974. It mandates that anyone trying to build a healthcare facility apply for and receive a Certificate of Need. This creates local monopolies for existing healthcare facilities by eliminating new competition. It's a blatant form of protectionism.

bobthepanda 6y ago
To pass ACA the Democrats needed 60 out of 100 seats in the Senate and they had 58. To pass it they caucused with two independents, and one of them, Joe Lieberman, specifically would not vote for it if it had a public option.
- 34679 6y ago
  They needed 60 to avoid a filibuster. A filibuster would've required Republicans to obstruct the vote by speaking continuously on why Americans don't deserve healthcare. Democrats had them backed in a corner. All they had to do was propose a bill that benefited everyday Americans instead of corporate backers and they would've made the Republicans look like absolute fools for speaking endlessly against it. A filibuster only lasts as long as the opposition keeps debate open.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    The Overton window wasn't that far left in 2009. A good deal of the Obamacare messaging was focused around telling middle class Americans that no, they would not lose their existing employer-provided coverage. And even if you could pull out all the data that would show that Medicare for All benefited people more than existing coverage no one would've believed it.

pessimizer 6y ago

> I can't help but feel they help those taking the most money from lobbyists hide from view. If everybody takes money from an industry, no one has to hide because it will never be pointed out. The only way you can look bad is in comparison to outsiders, and many voters automatically disqualify outsiders as not being good enough to be insiders. We filter for bad apples, then call people who point out that we get exactly the results we would expect cynics and nihilists. > It takes a lot more effort to name some specifics either rules or people You can literally google who takes the most money from the industry. It's not a secret, and sunlight doesn't kill it.

an_opabinia 6y ago

> voting in outsiders regardless of their actual qualifications, who double down on the problems instead of fixing them While the spirit of what you’re saying is right, the media and the Democratic National Committee portray Bernie Sanders as an outsider, even though he’s been in politics for decades. The difficulty for lobbyists to influence him is well publicized and considered mostly true. His proposal to fix this specific problem - Medicare for all as opposed to free market healthcare pricing - is certainly consistent, cogent, and likely to work, even if you disagree it is the best one. It goes to show that the original comment you are reacting to many not be as partisan as it appears. It may simply be reactionary.

nine_k 6y ago
I have friends in Netherlands, where "medicare for all" is reality. What you get for it is doctors prescribing you paracetamol for most ailments, after you waited for a week or two for your turn to visit the doctor. Or with doctors not treating your chronic and deteriorating condition for months and years, because they only have the resources to treat such a condition in those who already have it much worse. I'm talking about real cases my friends faced. Despite that, Netherlands' health care is considered the best in Europe [1]. Maybe in your book it's strictly better than the current US system, but I suspect there's still room for improvement. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands#International_comparisons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands#...
- GordonS 6y ago
  Sounds a lot like the UK. Healthcare here seems to be very optimised for the most common ailments, and you're basically screwed for anything else unless you strike it lucky with a good doctor. For example, here your typical endocrinologist will easily be able to treat diabetes and hypothyroidism - but will tell you you're a crackpot if it's anything else. Similarly neurologists will only easily treat brain tumours, etc. Also, doctors and "specialists" are extremely conservative. Many seem to have had zero training since they left medical school 30 year ago, and never so much as glanced at research since then. Many won't prescribe treatments they haven't prescribed before (what the hell kind of logic is that?!). Almost all will prescribe based on cost before anything else - let's say there are 4 treatment options, A, B, C and D. D is most likely to work, and least likely to have negative side effects, but costs £1k/year; A costs £5, is not particularly likely to work, and has a small chance of destroying your life through negative side effects - yep, let's go with option A first! Oh, and unless it's cancer, you'll have to wait for treatment. A long time - you'll often wait several months after a referral from your GP, and then 6 months between each appointment after that. There are supposed to be maximum waiting list times mandated by law, but they game the system - "yes, I realise you've been waiting more than 3 months, but that was just for our pre-waiting list!" It's a good enough system for a lot of people, but also badly fails a lot of people too. Source: I'm a Brit with rare and chronic medical conditions, and had the misfortune to suffer badly at the hands of several arms of the NHS. It took 20 years to get a diagnosis for one of my conditions.

cmurf 6y ago

You've just made a bunch of broad sweeping statements, and they are based on feelings not evidence.