By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Nymeria on 09 October 2017
Edit Thread
sc94597 said:

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. 

Many issues I've witnessed is the rolling cost of healthcare leading to bakruptcy.  It's listed as the numbe  one reason Americans file so it's not a small number of people who find medical bills to be a massive burden that reduces the quality of their lives.  The average person (50% of the population) has $1000 or less rainy day fund.  These costs to the economy have all sorts of knock off effects that could be avoided.  Many people I know avoid the doctor and self medicate due to the costs, how many illnesses get worse because regular medical treatment is seen as a privelege?

Can you point to a country doing that? For example does Canada deny care to elderly for fiscal responsibility? I looked it up and Canada is 12th on life expectancy and the US is 31st. I understand all sorts of variables there, but these systems don't seem to diminish length of life one would expect to enjoy.

My finding is US spends 3.2 trillion on healthcare per year.  Medicare for all would shift that to an estimated 1.9 trillion per year.  Per person that would shift us into alignment with other countries.  Can correct numbers if you found differently.

I'm not sucking up, but I appreciate your nuance in this discussion and not attacking me.  I think consensus is there, its a matter of how rather than if.  No system will match all of our demands, but working toward something better is a start so I appreicate that sentiment.