7 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.