Its not bankrupted any other first world country which has universal healthcare free at the point of need. The tax burden per capita of the UK NHS is the same as the tax burden per capita in the USA for Medicare and Medicaid yet the NHS covers 100% of the population. It may not be perfect but people don't have to make the choice between getting treatment and eating.
Do you think we can easily afford to have a system like the UK's health system with personnel costs like the US system?
Just saying "but the UK...." isn't an answer. Vermont tried it. They couldn't find a way to pay for it. There must be some actual reason. Unless you think everyone in Vermont's government is just a moron...?
I seriously have NO problem with them making well into the 6 figure range. If they work that hard and long, and get that good..and keep MY ass well and alive...they are worth it.
Cool. But then you can't cut health care costs much (single-payer or otherwise) because that's where most of the money goes.
You have cancer? Diabetes? A hernia? You're not going to get the treatment you need for that at the ER. Period. The ER does things that are specific to the moment, like set a broken arm. Still, you get to pay for the meds, and any follow-up care.
But poor people qualify for Medicaid. So if you show up with cancer and have no money, they enroll you in Medicaid and Medicaid pays for treatment.
How big a factor is the wages of doctors and nurses in the bottom line? The cost of drugs and supplies is much higher in US, driven up by collusion between pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and government. You also have leeches like Martin Shkreli pumping up the cost.
Drugs are 14% (or 17%) of the cost of health care. Maybe costs can be cut there. Do you think you can get huge savings without significantly cutting costs in the other 83-86% of health care spending?
Politicians run on cutting drug costs all the time. How does that work out?
You also have leeches like Martin Shkreli pumping up the cost.
What if we wanted to accomplish something besides scoring political debate points?
So no structural incentive to control costs then. Or keep customers happy. But still a middleman who has to be paid a salary out of the total, instead of spending that money on actual care.
It wouldn't have worked because they couldn't stop people from neighboring states from flooding in.
Yeah, that's the problem with giving people something for "free" isn't it?
Vermont could easily have added a residency requirement. That doesn't solve the problem. Even if no new people show up, it's still astronomically expensive. And the only way to make it much cheaper is to significantly cut compensation for health care workers and keep them from rising.
Everything else is a few percentage points that might get you back to the cost levels from 3 or 4 years ago. (And you remember 3 to 4 years ago right? Was health care cheap then? Was it a lot better? No.)
Well, I just can't understand how most of Europe and Canada do it without actually going bankrupt.
By starting 50 or 75 years ago and keeping costs from rising year after year up until the present.
Vermont tried to go single-payer a couple years ago. They couldn’t make it work because there was no way for them to cut doctor and nurse salaries enough to make the financing work out.
If you want to understand, start by learning from Vermont's experience.
They do feed the poor. What do you think retired civil servants will be if they don't have pensions? Many of them worked below-market-wage jobs for decades
Private sector employees in all industries reported an average salary of $44,600 per year. During the same period, government workers reported an average annual salary of $51,840 -- $7,240 per year more than private-sector employees.
Taxes don't matter because the money goes to government worker pensions.
Pensions don't build or repair roads. Pensions don't teach schoolchildren. Pensions don't put out fires. Pensions don't solve crimes or keep the peace. Pensions don't feed the poor or provide for the needy. Pensions don't keep the air and water clean.
It never makes sense to have competing physical layers of network infrastructure.
This is incorrect. It's simply a financial calculation. If I have an apartment building with 200 units, it definitely makes financial sense for several providers to connect to the network in the building's basement. If I have a mountain farmhouse, it probably makes no sense for any provider to connect to my network.
There are 320 million Americans. If 40% have only 1 provider, then 60% have more (or less) than one. How does that happen if redundant infrastructure never, ever makes sense?
Towers are run by 3rd party companies like American Tower.
It makes a lot more financial sense for one company to own a tower and rent antenna space to several providers rather than several mobile companies each building redundant towers.
Yes, but people can learn to be either good or evil.
We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right. That is a fundamental problem and I don't think it changes much if you rein in social media.
Narcissism is feeding the intolerance. People love themselves and tell themselves stories about how they know what's best and how future events would work out great if only everyone acted a certain way. Facebook is computerized narcissism.
I don't think reining in Facebook is the answer either. A broader cultural movement toward genuine kindness and goodness is what's needed — like the sexual revolution or the Great Reawakening, only for kindness and generosity and tolerance rather than hedonism or piety.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not bankrupted any other first world country which has universal healthcare free at the point of need. The tax burden per capita of the UK NHS is the same as the tax burden per capita in the USA for Medicare and Medicaid yet the NHS covers 100% of the population. It may not be perfect but people don't have to make the choice between getting treatment and eating.
That's not a plan. Do you propose to cut doctor salaries in the US to the level of the UK? How about nurses? How do you think that political fight will go?
Do you think we can easily afford to have a system like the UK's health system with personnel costs like the US system?
Just saying "but the UK...." isn't an answer. Vermont tried it. They couldn't find a way to pay for it. There must be some actual reason. Unless you think everyone in Vermont's government is just a moron...?
I seriously have NO problem with them making well into the 6 figure range. If they work that hard and long, and get that good..and keep MY ass well and alive...they are worth it.
Cool. But then you can't cut health care costs much (single-payer or otherwise) because that's where most of the money goes.
You have cancer? Diabetes? A hernia? You're not going to get the treatment you need for that at the ER. Period. The ER does things that are specific to the moment, like set a broken arm. Still, you get to pay for the meds, and any follow-up care.
But poor people qualify for Medicaid. So if you show up with cancer and have no money, they enroll you in Medicaid and Medicaid pays for treatment.
How big a factor is the wages of doctors and nurses in the bottom line? The cost of drugs and supplies is much higher in US, driven up by collusion between pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and government. You also have leeches like Martin Shkreli pumping up the cost.
Drugs are 14% (or 17%) of the cost of health care. Maybe costs can be cut there. Do you think you can get huge savings without significantly cutting costs in the other 83-86% of health care spending?
Politicians run on cutting drug costs all the time. How does that work out?
You also have leeches like Martin Shkreli pumping up the cost.
What if we wanted to accomplish something besides scoring political debate points?
That's a lot of text, but it doesn't make a government payer not a middleman.
So no structural incentive to control costs then. Or keep customers happy. But still a middleman who has to be paid a salary out of the total, instead of spending that money on actual care.
It wouldn't have worked because they couldn't stop people from neighboring states from flooding in.
Yeah, that's the problem with giving people something for "free" isn't it?
Vermont could easily have added a residency requirement. That doesn't solve the problem. Even if no new people show up, it's still astronomically expensive. And the only way to make it much cheaper is to significantly cut compensation for health care workers and keep them from rising.
Everything else is a few percentage points that might get you back to the cost levels from 3 or 4 years ago. (And you remember 3 to 4 years ago right? Was health care cheap then? Was it a lot better? No.)
Single payer removes a middleman that is of no value added
How is a government bureaucrat paying a doctor less of a middleman than an insurance company bureaucrat paying a doctor?
Well, I just can't understand how most of Europe and Canada do it without actually going bankrupt.
By starting 50 or 75 years ago and keeping costs from rising year after year up until the present.
Vermont tried to go single-payer a couple years ago. They couldn’t make it work because there was no way for them to cut doctor and nurse salaries enough to make the financing work out.
If you want to understand, start by learning from Vermont's experience.
It's mostly because health care workers in the US make a lot more than in other countries. Here's a survey of nurse salaries in different countries.
Total executive bonuses for ~100 guys don't come close to the amount it costs to pay millions of doctors and nurses more.
Is your single payer system going to cut health care worker pay by 25-50% and keep it down?
How about we stop telling each other fanciful stories (that appeal to our personal tribal biases) long enough to do simple a little arithmetic?
Whatever answer works so government pension recipients keep cashing in while needy people go without the government services they depend on.
Maybe the government just hires more people in the higher-paid professions than the private sector.
So now you're saying government workers aren't poor. You should stop changing your mind.
They do feed the poor. What do you think retired civil servants will be if they don't have pensions? Many of them worked below-market-wage jobs for decades
Government employees average higher pay and better benefits than private sector:
Look it up yourself if you want a different source: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=governmen...
Not to mention what a dick move it would be to promise pensions then take it away when it's inconvenient.
It's a super dick move for well off government workers to take so much when poor people need government services.
Taxes don't matter because the money goes to government worker pensions.
Pensions don't build or repair roads.
Pensions don't teach schoolchildren.
Pensions don't put out fires.
Pensions don't solve crimes or keep the peace.
Pensions don't feed the poor or provide for the needy.
Pensions don't keep the air and water clean.
Oh no! Car analogies are going autonomous!
The information superhighway will never be the same.
It never makes sense to have competing physical layers of network infrastructure.
This is incorrect. It's simply a financial calculation. If I have an apartment building with 200 units, it definitely makes financial sense for several providers to connect to the network in the building's basement. If I have a mountain farmhouse, it probably makes no sense for any provider to connect to my network.
There are 320 million Americans. If 40% have only 1 provider, then 60% have more (or less) than one. How does that happen if redundant infrastructure never, ever makes sense?
Maybe they'll start doing that again now that they can no longer free ride on everyone else's infrastructure.
Towers are run by 3rd party companies like American Tower.
It makes a lot more financial sense for one company to own a tower and rent antenna space to several providers rather than several mobile companies each building redundant towers.
There's a time and a place for everything, and it's called college...
Try going to Wyoming and marching with a peace sign.
No one would give a shit. At worst, someone might make a rude comment.
Please elaborate. You want a vote to censor Facebook? Or outlaw it? Nationalize it?
We would like to know what authority you think 51% of the population should be allowed to exercise over Facebook.
...social media is people.
Yes, but people can learn to be either good or evil.
We all know people that have grown far less tolerant and far more angry, I'm talking both left and right. That is a fundamental problem and I don't think it changes much if you rein in social media.
Narcissism is feeding the intolerance. People love themselves and tell themselves stories about how they know what's best and how future events would work out great if only everyone acted a certain way. Facebook is computerized narcissism.
I don't think reining in Facebook is the answer either. A broader cultural movement toward genuine kindness and goodness is what's needed — like the sexual revolution or the Great Reawakening, only for kindness and generosity and tolerance rather than hedonism or piety.
No. That would be too dramatic. They almost never come true.
No epiphany for me. Alas.
You didn't tell me that 20 years ago. You aren't making the case that you can predict the future.
... tracked ... profiled ... monitored ... laughed ... laughing ... dumb ...
Fanaticism and zeal don't sound credible and factual. You can probably get an "Amen" though.