6 ms·

Can I be the first non-US citizen in this thread express my incredulity that anything less than universal health care is tolerated? "Barbaric" is the term that

Can I be the first non-US citizen in this thread express my incredulity that anything less than universal health care is tolerated? "Barbaric" is the term that seems to strike me whenever I hear of it, hyperbolic though it may be.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Yes, yes, Americans are practically drooling Cro-magnons for not having universal health care. We know, we've heard it countless times before, and I'm not sure it contributes anything to the discussion other than a smug sense of self-superiority for the non-American readers.
- drivebyacct2 13y ago
  Somehow seeing it repeated makes me hopeful that people will eventually be confronted to the point that their head will intentionally or accidentally recede back from out their ass.
- a3n 13y ago
  As an American I agree, it's terrible not having universal healthcare. What's the point of being a large body if we don't take advantage of that? And if we don't, we really aren't anything except individuals. Nothing wrong with being an individual, but we can be and accomplish so much more together. Apart, we're just living in the same place.
  - markost 13y ago
    Did you reply to the wrong comment?
iopq 13y ago
I don't accept anything less than universal food care, universal shelter care, universal clothing care, and of course universal marriage care.
- purplelobster 13y ago
  Ironically, you're close enough to the truth. The only thing that stands in the way of dignified living for everybody is people like you. There is enough resources in this world (especially the US). Why should kids everywhere live in poverty, starve and not be given the same opportunity under the same conditions as more fortunate kids (well fed, good schools) because their parents couldn't find or hold down a job? Instead, kids grow up hungry and can't focus on school, and even if they want to, they live in a poor neighborhood with bad schools, perpetuating the situation for yet another generation.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    because we all know that then all kids would be hungry and not educated not only the poor ones. Somehow socialism always ends up making everyone equally poor and not equally rich. I read recently that in Canada waiting time for some surgeries are 6 months. For everyone. People who can afford and people who can't afford. Everybody screwed over. But of course that's what socialism is all about - making all people equal. In their poverty.
    - mason55 13y ago
      There's a huge difference between socialism and a minimum living standard
    - alexqgb 13y ago
      Well said good sir! Your grasp of basic facts about the world is truly impeccable. Why, I myself just got back from Sweden where I had a layover on the flight from Mozambique. Or did I stop in Mozambique on my way back from Sweden? Now that I think about it, I can't be sure! I mean, honestly, who can tell them apart? Not me! Or you!
    - throwaway9848 13y ago
      What a bunch of nonsense. If you look at aggregate numbers, people in socialist countries on the average are healthier and live longer. And the children of Canada, France, Britain, Norway, and so on do not go hungry. Amazing! I don't even agree with a lot of western European style socialism, but it sucks that because of people like you we can't even have an honest, adult conversation about it. Thanks loads.
dnautics 13y ago
you don't understand what it means to be a minority. We don't get anywhere near equal quality coverage and are basically forced to subsidize better medical care for white folk. For years, my father was prescribed a drug (simvastatin) that actually did damage to his body because it's nearly universally assumed to be good for him (it is for most white people), and strongly subsidized by the government (he's a military vet). I only found out because I got 23andMe, and I actually know biology. It was dismaying to find out that very few of the tests on 23andMe are useful for Asians like me (fewer still if you're hispanic and if you're pure African, the affymetrix chip they use is basically useless). As we move into an era of personalized medicine, we'll be subsidizing better healthcare and better outcomes for some ethnic groups over others. The faulty assumption behind universal healthcare is that a one-size-fits-all prescription is good for everyone, but there are some really ugly disparities that no one talks about; and these disparities serve to reinforce preexisting social inequality. While I'm lucky to be in a minority group that's likely to live a long time - if we have it, a lot of universal healthcare coverage will wind up being plowed into gerontological care costs, which tend to be super-expensive; so in a way, it's a subsidy for rich white people. Now, I do think the american healthcare system is awful. In particular being able to be put into permanent lifelong debt from healthcare costs is only one small step above barbarism. But I don't think that universal healthcare is the solution we're looking for. Obamacare is even worse, it combines the worst parts of universal healthcare with the worst parts of the crony capitalist system we have, and I won't be surprised when it turns out to be an even bigger albatross on the shoulders of this country.
- dbpatterson 13y ago
  Universal health care has _nothing_ to do with treating all people alike. It just means treating them all.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    Fine. But government is required to treat all people alike. I think this is a reasonable requirement, given that you cannot 'opt out' of government. If you want to set up a private universal health care charity fund, I would happily cut a recurring check to help your cause, assuming some basic transparency and accountability. At least, if you mess up your charity and start, say, embezzling funds, I can opt out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
the only difference is that in socialized medicine you wait for life saving surgery for months even when you have money to pay for it. So everybody suffers.
- robbiep 13y ago
  No, if you need lifesaving surgery, you get it. And you don't get a bill that ends up costing a second mortgage. Elective procedures - that's a different story. But it is location specific, and in many countries with mixed public/private systems you can pay through your nose if you like anyway
  - dnautics 13y ago
    who gets to decide what is lifesaving and what is elective?
    - taylodl 13y ago
      Currently the insurance company does, and since they were most likely selected by your employer whose objective was to hold down costs, what do you think that insurer's priorities are going to be? Plus, who's the customer in this situation? For whose business is the insurance company really working for?
      - dnautics 13y ago
        no doubt having your employment being tied to your insurance is a really, really bad idea, but may I remind that state of affairs is because of a government incentive put into place by FDR.
        taylodl 13y ago
        You failed to mention the context of that government incentive - World War II. And the incentive you're referring to was put in place by the War Labor Board in 1942, during FDR's presidency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Labor_Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Labor_Board
ds9 13y ago
You're a little too harsh in saying "tolerated". Opinion polls have shown for decades that a majority favor a system more like those of Canada or Europe - here it's called "single payer". But the interests of the majority have little relevance here. The "single payer" alternative is considered so radical in USA that it's mentioned in the corporate media only apologetically, as if it were advocacy of leprosy. When they can't avoid mentioning the obvious, the rejection of it is euphemistically explained by saying that it is "politically unrealistic" - before a quick change of topic. The "talking points" the owners provide for their followers call it "socialism", and the latter, in US political culture, is an epithet like "child molester". The ugly reality this charade is designed to avoid acknowledging is that the US is ruled by what has lately been called "the one percent" - and there is nothing the majority can do about it. Voting for one of the practically identical, freak-show, major-party candidates is made useless by the two-party system; the increasingly hollow pretence of democracy mocks any thought of reform. Of course it's barbaric. It is also perfectly rational on the part of the rulers: their families need not worry about getting first-quality treatment of any health problem, and from their view the rest are disposable labor whose costs are still too expensive. What, exactly, would you propose we do about it? Protest in the streets? People can't afford to lose their jobs, nor even time away from their daily responsibilities. Write to Congresspeople? Pointless for those who can't afford lobbyists. Revolution? No one has a realistic plan. It's almost miraculous that Obama managed to (temporarily?) install a plan that even purports to help - and it forces citizens to pay the insurance industry, whose presence in the healthcare system is exactly what keeps 30-40 percent of the population an illness or injury away from destitution. You're obviously in a better place (news of which does not penetrate the info-tainment here, BTW), but it's rather naive to suppose that we in the US chose this situation. For us, it will get worse before it gets better.
Frozenlock 13y ago
Can I be the first non-US citizen to say that universal health care is, by definition barbaric? Adjective Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. Primitive; unsophisticated. I fail to see how, when a group decide to take from the minority, it could be seen as anything else than barbaric. It saddens me to see one of the last first world country coming closer to the universal health care trap. Sure, the US medical fees are insanely overpriced, but you don't solve a problem like this just by hiding the costs in a social program.
- maratd 13y ago
  > It saddens me to see one of the last first world country coming closer to the universal health care trap. We're still quite a ways off and there's been quite a bit of pushback on the small steps Obama took. It's entirely possible the whole thing will be scrapped during the next presidency.
  - __--__ 13y ago
    I hope so. It puts an unusual amount of financial pressure on small companies who are trying to make that step into big companies. I know of quite a few companies who are artificially keeping their employment count below 50 to avoid the costs of obamacare.
- dkuntz2 13y ago
  Is it really any different from traditional insurance? Don't most insurance companies take money from all their clients, and use it on a fairly small number of those clients? I personally don't see the "trap" you reference. I'd really like to understand your position there...
  - Frozenlock 13y ago
    Traditional insurance will/can reject some individuals. For example, you don't take an insurance against theft AFTER you've been stolen hoping that they will reimburse you. In addition, insurance companies can target a certain demographic to offer lower prices: An insurance for office workers will not be the same as an insurance for football players. This is a really key point. Market forces push insurance to offer specialised coverages that match your risks. Start smoking? Hey, we're going to bump you in the next bracket... And in case the only insurance offered are a clear rip off (extended warranty kind of thing), you can always walk off and say "no thanks". Now, imagine a new government program that decides to accept everyone because capitalisms is obviously flawed and full of greedy people. The cost of such an insurance will be, for certain individuals, higher than what they would be with a targeted coverage. (The office workers for example.) Those individuals have now every incentives to leave this insurance and either take a private one, or even take none at all. This causes the remaining few in the government insurance to have higher premiums, causing even more people to leave and check for alternatives. The only way to prevent this exodus is to force everyone to stay with a single, monolithic insurance coverage. Even (especially!) those who are healthy. Let's assume that you are OK with the concept, because without the government, the sick, single moms and children are facing certain death... Because this super insurance is working outside of the market, you can't evaluate the value it provides. (If you force someone to buy an ice cream cone $36 at gunpoint, is it really worth $36? Maybe, maybe not...) This in itself is a huge problem, because you never know when you are wasting too much resource to try to solve a problem. Would this money better spent financing schools? Perhaps it would be better to distribute better food to poor families? Again, it's outside the market so you'll probably never know. While there's an infinity of bad/suboptimal ideas, there's only one or a handful good. Now pick one and 'hope'. Throw in a little political games in it, and you'll probably never end up with what you were expecting to begin it. But there's yet another, more 'local' problem. Now that you have your too-big-to-fail insurance, how can you keep it in check? Should it cost $1k to process a claim, or $10k? When is your administration too big? You can compare yourself to some other insurance companies, but that's assuming you didn't wipe out the entire market (which you have to, eventually, to prevent the exodus). Even with comparison, you never have a decisive proof that it's too big. How do workers react, when you try to resize an industry, without the proof that it needs to be done? If, in addition, it's a government subsidized industry, good luck ever making it smaller. The end result is a "service" that not a single soul knows how much it should cost, but with a constant pressure to increase the funding. Also, this is without taking into consideration some pharmaceutical firms' lobbying. Imagine how happy they would be, if none of their consumers were the payers! (It's already a problem in the U.S. IMO; people use drugs but just forward the bill to their insurance.) These problems only grow with time. While a government insurance might be "not so bad" in the beginning, every structures and forces around will deteriorate it. And before you know it, you won't ever be able to talk against any of its part, because then you'll be a greedy capitalist that wants to leave the poor and sick die a painful death. This is the trap I'm talking about. When you're in it, there's no way out.
krapp 13y ago
The rationale makes a twisted sort of sense when you realize that, to the people in power in the US, access to healthcare is no more a 'right' than is access to a luxury car. It's just another good, and suggesting otherwise is tantamount to legalizing theft.
__--__ 13y ago
And yet, our specialists are the best in the world and people fly in from all over the world to be treated by them. I'm not saying our system is perfect or can't be improved, but "Barbaric"? You win the prize for the most ridiculously hyperbolic statement I've read all today.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Yes, yes, Americans are practically drooling Cro-magnons for not having universal health care. We know, we've heard it countless times before, and I'm not sure it contributes anything to the discussion other than a smug sense of self-superiority for the non-American readers.

drivebyacct2 13y ago
Somehow seeing it repeated makes me hopeful that people will eventually be confronted to the point that their head will intentionally or accidentally recede back from out their ass.
a3n 13y ago
As an American I agree, it's terrible not having universal healthcare. What's the point of being a large body if we don't take advantage of that? And if we don't, we really aren't anything except individuals. Nothing wrong with being an individual, but we can be and accomplish so much more together. Apart, we're just living in the same place.
- markost 13y ago
  Did you reply to the wrong comment?

iopq 13y ago

I don't accept anything less than universal food care, universal shelter care, universal clothing care, and of course universal marriage care.

purplelobster 13y ago
Ironically, you're close enough to the truth. The only thing that stands in the way of dignified living for everybody is people like you. There is enough resources in this world (especially the US). Why should kids everywhere live in poverty, starve and not be given the same opportunity under the same conditions as more fortunate kids (well fed, good schools) because their parents couldn't find or hold down a job? Instead, kids grow up hungry and can't focus on school, and even if they want to, they live in a poor neighborhood with bad schools, perpetuating the situation for yet another generation.
- LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
  because we all know that then all kids would be hungry and not educated not only the poor ones. Somehow socialism always ends up making everyone equally poor and not equally rich. I read recently that in Canada waiting time for some surgeries are 6 months. For everyone. People who can afford and people who can't afford. Everybody screwed over. But of course that's what socialism is all about - making all people equal. In their poverty.
  - mason55 13y ago
    There's a huge difference between socialism and a minimum living standard
  - alexqgb 13y ago
    Well said good sir! Your grasp of basic facts about the world is truly impeccable. Why, I myself just got back from Sweden where I had a layover on the flight from Mozambique. Or did I stop in Mozambique on my way back from Sweden? Now that I think about it, I can't be sure! I mean, honestly, who can tell them apart? Not me! Or you!
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    What a bunch of nonsense. If you look at aggregate numbers, people in socialist countries on the average are healthier and live longer. And the children of Canada, France, Britain, Norway, and so on do not go hungry. Amazing! I don't even agree with a lot of western European style socialism, but it sucks that because of people like you we can't even have an honest, adult conversation about it. Thanks loads.

dnautics 13y ago

you don't understand what it means to be a minority. We don't get anywhere near equal quality coverage and are basically forced to subsidize better medical care for white folk. For years, my father was prescribed a drug (simvastatin) that actually did damage to his body because it's nearly universally assumed to be good for him (it is for most white people), and strongly subsidized by the government (he's a military vet). I only found out because I got 23andMe, and I actually know biology. It was dismaying to find out that very few of the tests on 23andMe are useful for Asians like me (fewer still if you're hispanic and if you're pure African, the affymetrix chip they use is basically useless). As we move into an era of personalized medicine, we'll be subsidizing better healthcare and better outcomes for some ethnic groups over others. The faulty assumption behind universal healthcare is that a one-size-fits-all prescription is good for everyone, but there are some really ugly disparities that no one talks about; and these disparities serve to reinforce preexisting social inequality. While I'm lucky to be in a minority group that's likely to live a long time - if we have it, a lot of universal healthcare coverage will wind up being plowed into gerontological care costs, which tend to be super-expensive; so in a way, it's a subsidy for rich white people. Now, I do think the american healthcare system is awful. In particular being able to be put into permanent lifelong debt from healthcare costs is only one small step above barbarism. But I don't think that universal healthcare is the solution we're looking for. Obamacare is even worse, it combines the worst parts of universal healthcare with the worst parts of the crony capitalist system we have, and I won't be surprised when it turns out to be an even bigger albatross on the shoulders of this country.

dbpatterson 13y ago
Universal health care has _nothing_ to do with treating all people alike. It just means treating them all.
- dnautics 13y ago
  Fine. But government is required to treat all people alike. I think this is a reasonable requirement, given that you cannot 'opt out' of government. If you want to set up a private universal health care charity fund, I would happily cut a recurring check to help your cause, assuming some basic transparency and accountability. At least, if you mess up your charity and start, say, embezzling funds, I can opt out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

LekkoscPiwa 13y ago

the only difference is that in socialized medicine you wait for life saving surgery for months even when you have money to pay for it. So everybody suffers.

robbiep 13y ago
No, if you need lifesaving surgery, you get it. And you don't get a bill that ends up costing a second mortgage. Elective procedures - that's a different story. But it is location specific, and in many countries with mixed public/private systems you can pay through your nose if you like anyway
- dnautics 13y ago
  who gets to decide what is lifesaving and what is elective?
  - taylodl 13y ago
    Currently the insurance company does, and since they were most likely selected by your employer whose objective was to hold down costs, what do you think that insurer's priorities are going to be? Plus, who's the customer in this situation? For whose business is the insurance company really working for?
    - dnautics 13y ago
      no doubt having your employment being tied to your insurance is a really, really bad idea, but may I remind that state of affairs is because of a government incentive put into place by FDR.
      - taylodl 13y ago
        You failed to mention the context of that government incentive - World War II. And the incentive you're referring to was put in place by the War Labor Board in 1942, during FDR's presidency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Labor_Board http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Labor_Board

ds9 13y ago

You're a little too harsh in saying "tolerated". Opinion polls have shown for decades that a majority favor a system more like those of Canada or Europe - here it's called "single payer". But the interests of the majority have little relevance here. The "single payer" alternative is considered so radical in USA that it's mentioned in the corporate media only apologetically, as if it were advocacy of leprosy. When they can't avoid mentioning the obvious, the rejection of it is euphemistically explained by saying that it is "politically unrealistic" - before a quick change of topic. The "talking points" the owners provide for their followers call it "socialism", and the latter, in US political culture, is an epithet like "child molester". The ugly reality this charade is designed to avoid acknowledging is that the US is ruled by what has lately been called "the one percent" - and there is nothing the majority can do about it. Voting for one of the practically identical, freak-show, major-party candidates is made useless by the two-party system; the increasingly hollow pretence of democracy mocks any thought of reform. Of course it's barbaric. It is also perfectly rational on the part of the rulers: their families need not worry about getting first-quality treatment of any health problem, and from their view the rest are disposable labor whose costs are still too expensive. What, exactly, would you propose we do about it? Protest in the streets? People can't afford to lose their jobs, nor even time away from their daily responsibilities. Write to Congresspeople? Pointless for those who can't afford lobbyists. Revolution? No one has a realistic plan. It's almost miraculous that Obama managed to (temporarily?) install a plan that even purports to help - and it forces citizens to pay the insurance industry, whose presence in the healthcare system is exactly what keeps 30-40 percent of the population an illness or injury away from destitution. You're obviously in a better place (news of which does not penetrate the info-tainment here, BTW), but it's rather naive to suppose that we in the US chose this situation. For us, it will get worse before it gets better.

Frozenlock 13y ago

Can I be the first non-US citizen to say that universal health care is, by definition barbaric? Adjective Savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal. Primitive; unsophisticated. I fail to see how, when a group decide to take from the minority, it could be seen as anything else than barbaric. It saddens me to see one of the last first world country coming closer to the universal health care trap. Sure, the US medical fees are insanely overpriced, but you don't solve a problem like this just by hiding the costs in a social program.

maratd 13y ago
> It saddens me to see one of the last first world country coming closer to the universal health care trap. We're still quite a ways off and there's been quite a bit of pushback on the small steps Obama took. It's entirely possible the whole thing will be scrapped during the next presidency.
- __--__ 13y ago
  I hope so. It puts an unusual amount of financial pressure on small companies who are trying to make that step into big companies. I know of quite a few companies who are artificially keeping their employment count below 50 to avoid the costs of obamacare.
dkuntz2 13y ago
Is it really any different from traditional insurance? Don't most insurance companies take money from all their clients, and use it on a fairly small number of those clients? I personally don't see the "trap" you reference. I'd really like to understand your position there...
- Frozenlock 13y ago
  Traditional insurance will/can reject some individuals. For example, you don't take an insurance against theft AFTER you've been stolen hoping that they will reimburse you. In addition, insurance companies can target a certain demographic to offer lower prices: An insurance for office workers will not be the same as an insurance for football players. This is a really key point. Market forces push insurance to offer specialised coverages that match your risks. Start smoking? Hey, we're going to bump you in the next bracket... And in case the only insurance offered are a clear rip off (extended warranty kind of thing), you can always walk off and say "no thanks". Now, imagine a new government program that decides to accept everyone because capitalisms is obviously flawed and full of greedy people. The cost of such an insurance will be, for certain individuals, higher than what they would be with a targeted coverage. (The office workers for example.) Those individuals have now every incentives to leave this insurance and either take a private one, or even take none at all. This causes the remaining few in the government insurance to have higher premiums, causing even more people to leave and check for alternatives. The only way to prevent this exodus is to force everyone to stay with a single, monolithic insurance coverage. Even (especially!) those who are healthy. Let's assume that you are OK with the concept, because without the government, the sick, single moms and children are facing certain death... Because this super insurance is working outside of the market, you can't evaluate the value it provides. (If you force someone to buy an ice cream cone $36 at gunpoint, is it really worth $36? Maybe, maybe not...) This in itself is a huge problem, because you never know when you are wasting too much resource to try to solve a problem. Would this money better spent financing schools? Perhaps it would be better to distribute better food to poor families? Again, it's outside the market so you'll probably never know. While there's an infinity of bad/suboptimal ideas, there's only one or a handful good. Now pick one and 'hope'. Throw in a little political games in it, and you'll probably never end up with what you were expecting to begin it. But there's yet another, more 'local' problem. Now that you have your too-big-to-fail insurance, how can you keep it in check? Should it cost $1k to process a claim, or $10k? When is your administration too big? You can compare yourself to some other insurance companies, but that's assuming you didn't wipe out the entire market (which you have to, eventually, to prevent the exodus). Even with comparison, you never have a decisive proof that it's too big. How do workers react, when you try to resize an industry, without the proof that it needs to be done? If, in addition, it's a government subsidized industry, good luck ever making it smaller. The end result is a "service" that not a single soul knows how much it should cost, but with a constant pressure to increase the funding. Also, this is without taking into consideration some pharmaceutical firms' lobbying. Imagine how happy they would be, if none of their consumers were the payers! (It's already a problem in the U.S. IMO; people use drugs but just forward the bill to their insurance.) These problems only grow with time. While a government insurance might be "not so bad" in the beginning, every structures and forces around will deteriorate it. And before you know it, you won't ever be able to talk against any of its part, because then you'll be a greedy capitalist that wants to leave the poor and sick die a painful death. This is the trap I'm talking about. When you're in it, there's no way out.

krapp 13y ago

The rationale makes a twisted sort of sense when you realize that, to the people in power in the US, access to healthcare is no more a 'right' than is access to a luxury car. It's just another good, and suggesting otherwise is tantamount to legalizing theft.

__--__ 13y ago

And yet, our specialists are the best in the world and people fly in from all over the world to be treated by them. I'm not saying our system is perfect or can't be improved, but "Barbaric"? You win the prize for the most ridiculously hyperbolic statement I've read all today.