5 ms·

That's not how it works. America is a mix of several different systems. Everyone has access to care, and there are several public healthcare offerings; some spe

That's not how it works. America is a mix of several different systems. Everyone has access to care, and there are several public healthcare offerings; some specifically for seniors/low-income/single-parents/children/etc. The ACA already gives everyone an insurance option. The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations. Smaller companies can't compete, some people can't leave a bad job because of losing their plan, and others are limited to public options because they don't work. This is the overwhelming problem with USA healthcare. There aren't actually many choices because of this complex and outdated connection between jobs and benefits.

deanCommie 6y ago
I think we didn't understand each other. I know that today America has choice. But it leads to the highest healthcare costs in the Western World (to allow for middlemen healthcare companies to be some of the largest privatecompanies in the country), with the worst quality for the poorest people. So the question is, how do you solve the problem of universal access while giving people the "choice". > The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations Not in the rest of the western world. We just simply don't have these companies. They don't need to exist. They are a form of corporate socialism transferring wealth from taxpayers to mediate something that can be handled directly. Health insurance companies is a moral failure. I'm going to double down on my metaphor. Fire engines don't check your insurance to decide if they should put your fire out. That used to be how things worked 100 years ago.
- manigandham 6y ago
  No, like I just said, America already has access and healthcare insurance options for everyone. Nobody is denied. The choice for better healthcare is limited and locked behind employment. That's the problem, instead of letting everyone have access to all plans, and the solutions are too complicated to discuss here. However insurance is not a moral failure, it's a financial and risk management concept. Just because your government manages somethings for you with your taxes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
  - deanCommie 6y ago
    What you call "better" healthcare is considered basic healthcare in the rest of the world. I understand that when you're a fish it's hard to understand what water is, but the fact that employment plays any part into this whatsoever is a problem. Nobody in Canada or the UK or Luxembourg (some countries i have some experience with) would ever factor in healthcare in a decision to start or leave a job. It is absolutely not a variable.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      > "the fact that employment plays any part into this whatsoever is a problem" Yes, I've said exactly this about half a dozen times now. It seems you're arguing based on myths and preconceived notions against the USA rather than actually responding to anything I've said. Let's end it here.
      - deanCommie 6y ago
        I misread your last comment, apologies for that. I just don't understand you acknowledging that healthcare choice being locked behind employment and insurance companies middlemen being a problem yet still wanting "healthcare choice." What does that mean to you if you don't have the others any longer?

deanCommie 6y ago

I think we didn't understand each other. I know that today America has choice. But it leads to the highest healthcare costs in the Western World (to allow for middlemen healthcare companies to be some of the largest privatecompanies in the country), with the worst quality for the poorest people. So the question is, how do you solve the problem of universal access while giving people the "choice". > The issue is that better coverage requires private insurance, mostly offered through corporations Not in the rest of the western world. We just simply don't have these companies. They don't need to exist. They are a form of corporate socialism transferring wealth from taxpayers to mediate something that can be handled directly. Health insurance companies is a moral failure. I'm going to double down on my metaphor. Fire engines don't check your insurance to decide if they should put your fire out. That used to be how things worked 100 years ago.

manigandham 6y ago
No, like I just said, America already has access and healthcare insurance options for everyone. Nobody is denied. The choice for better healthcare is limited and locked behind employment. That's the problem, instead of letting everyone have access to all plans, and the solutions are too complicated to discuss here. However insurance is not a moral failure, it's a financial and risk management concept. Just because your government manages somethings for you with your taxes doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
- deanCommie 6y ago
  What you call "better" healthcare is considered basic healthcare in the rest of the world. I understand that when you're a fish it's hard to understand what water is, but the fact that employment plays any part into this whatsoever is a problem. Nobody in Canada or the UK or Luxembourg (some countries i have some experience with) would ever factor in healthcare in a decision to start or leave a job. It is absolutely not a variable.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    > "the fact that employment plays any part into this whatsoever is a problem" Yes, I've said exactly this about half a dozen times now. It seems you're arguing based on myths and preconceived notions against the USA rather than actually responding to anything I've said. Let's end it here.
    - deanCommie 6y ago
      I misread your last comment, apologies for that. I just don't understand you acknowledging that healthcare choice being locked behind employment and insurance companies middlemen being a problem yet still wanting "healthcare choice." What does that mean to you if you don't have the others any longer?