| Nymeria said: The choice that plays out over and over in the US these days is "freedom to go bankrupt or freedom to elect to die". The idea of not supporting a change, even an imperfect one, because it doesn't solve everything, makes little sense to me. Conservatives have spent decades making life harder in regards to family planning, they would likely continue doing it to me, but I'd at least get my life saving medication. I'd fight that battle as well, but I wouldn't turn down a massive improvement because it doesn't afford me everything I'd like. Studying US history many movements are gradual with generational victories. If women wanted full equality in 1910s to be bundled with right to vote they'd win that maybe by the 1980s. In the meantime they'd suffer all sorts of set backs. If we can at least get people to the table that what we have now is poor and we can do better that is a step forward. What I've seen from congress and the administration is to make it worse. We fight against poorly thought out repeals and for soemthing better. In my mind better means more American citizens getting care regardless of income. Maybe we get the medicare age lowered to 50, see the issues, and try to do better as lower it to 40, then 30, and finally to everyone. I can compromise on elements, but the over arching idea of going back to pre ACA or sticking with ACA seems cruel and I don't understand it. |
The overwhelming majority of medical decisions are not about catastrophe (you have one choice: get immediate care or die.) This is a subset of cases (about 2%) , which you are sensitive to, since you have a life-threatening illness, but most people don't make this choice. Most people are worried about preventing diseases or making non-life threatening illness bearable as they age and its inevitability comes to bear. A good health-care system should work for everyone's benefit, not just those with life-threatening illnesses. Many Americans spend thousands on end-of-life care, for example, which is designed to prolong as healthy a life as possible for the elderly. Under a single-payer system this would not be allowed by the state for way of "cost-effectiveness."
You'd get your life-saving treatement (so long as its "cost-effective"), and I'd lose the medication which reduces my chances of contracting an illness that can be life-threatening and costly to treat. There is no single trade-off here, and everyone has different health concerns.
And my problem isn't that "medicare for all" doesn't go far enough, it is that it goes too far in one direction without considering other problems that arise from its existence. My other problem is that it attempts to solve the problem (uninsured people need access to health-care) by sacrificing the care of or security of other people. I am not going to support such a solution if there are other, more palatable, and applicable solutions to the problem of not all people having access to healthcare.
In fact, it are the people who want "medicare for all" and nothing else who really are the one's who can't compromise. They'd rather abolish the entire healthcare market rather than reform it, and people rightfully oppose that because about 70% of people are satisfied with the care they get.
I am skeptical that "Medicare for all" would be even cost-effective unless the benefits that medicare recipients get are reduced drastically. I mean we spend more on Medicare and Medicaid than we do on education or the military, and that is only for people over the age of 65. What happens if it were expanded to the entire population? There would have to be strong cuts to what it provides. The elimination of administrative costs aren't going to make the whole difference. I am more open to the idea of letting people with pre-existing conditions buy into Medicaid.
