By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - DNC could be in trouble

DarthVolod on 23 May 2017
Hiku said:
DarthVolod said:


For one, let's start by understanding that American healthcare habits and uses are different than their European counterparts. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/why-do-other-rich-nations-spend-so-much-less-on-healthcare/374576/ 

Yes, Americans pay more for healthcare overall but that is for a multitude of reasons, and basically all of them can be tied back to government meddling. The phenomemon of employer provided insurance that many Americans are forced to utilize, for example, has its origins in tax law from the 1940s. Government institutions like the FDA and the AMA control the supply of doctors / care providers as well as which drugs do or do not make it to market (while also raising the costs significantly to produce drugs ... thus making so called greedy pharma companies jack up prices). 

Remove this interference (and assuming the ACA is repealed) and create a true free market for healthcare and prices would drastically fall. Competition will reduce costs; just as it does for any other sector of the economy where it is allowed to exist. 

You mentioned a number of apples to organges lists that compare the U.S. (a geographically large and ethnically diverse nation) to the likes of the U.K., Switzerland, Norway etc. (geographically small and incredibly ethnically homogenous nations). Wouldn't it make more sense to compare the U.S. on overall social progress / human rights / etc. with countires like China, Brazil, India, Indonesia etc? Population does matter on these lists as health care is just one amoungst other factors.

The reality is that Americans have different priorities and most would rather not experience sharp increases in income tax just for a universal healthcare system they may not even need (many of uninsured prior to the ACA were either young / healthy, or in a position to easily afford care; even still you had emergency hosptial room visits / etc and other options for the truly destitute). 

As for the supposed utopian universal healthcare systems seen in U.K. , Canada, many European countries, etc. There is an often unreported ugly side to universal converage in the form of wait times as a result of rationed care in an effort to reduce costs:  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care          

This of course is not even getting into the moral argument about whether or not you have the right to steal from someone just because you don't like paying your medical bills. There is no such thing as free universal health care, someone is footing the bill somewhere. Americans have, historically, opted to not live in a tax hellscape where much of their income is funneled into terribly inefficient entitlement programs.

You get what you pay for, and even with the ugly mixed economy health care the U.S. has now, it is still preferable to high taxes and rationed low quality care. Especially when one considers how unhealthy and obese the average American tends to be, the idea of sitting on a waiting list to see a specialist becomes less and less appealing for the average person in the U.S.

There are proceedures in the rest of the world that occur more frequently there than in the US as well. But the point of the inquary was about the cost of the treatmnents. For example the 2.5 times as many MRI's that your article mentioned. Why does an MRI scan cost $1,080 in America and $280 in France?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html

That's much more of a glaring issue than the difference in occurance of treatments. And why in spite of spending 2-3 times more on healthcare, per person, Americans get so much less. Because the high prices are not an exception, but more of the rule.
The comparison to the UK would only be improper if USA couldn't spend at least as much as the UK per person, due to the population of the USA. But that's not the case at all, as USA spends not only as much, but almost three times as much. And gets a lot less for it.

You mention raise taxes, but they wouldn't even have to do that. They could spend significantly LESS than they are now, and get much more. But instead, they prefer to funnel most of it towards corporate profit, and allow pharma companies to set the prices without the governement even being able to negotiate them. And this cycle doesn't end as long as politicians keep voting in favor of their corporate donors who spend hundreds of milllions every year to get their way.

As for waiting times, that's not an argument against universal healthcare. Things simply work differently in different coutnries. The article you linked highlights a rare disease that required the search of a rare donor. People die from waiting for donors in the US as well even if they can afford it. But as another article points out "Kidney transplantation in Canada is limited by the availability of organs, not by financial constraints. "
In Sweden for example, waiting times between two cities can vary by years.
USA may be better in terms of transplant waiting times overall for all I know. But when we are talking about healthcare that is readily availavble, if it is something urgent, there's no waiting time. You get it done. It's not a matter of finances.
If you want to make an optional surgery to clear the airways of your nose for example, then yes you will have to wait more than you would if you paid to do it in the US. But that's a tradeoff most people gladly take.

As for the morality "stealing from someone", this is actually something the majority of people in USA want their taxes to go to, if you ask them about the actual policies instead of fearmongering.
Ex 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-republicans-but-most-people-support-single-payer-health-care/2017/04/17/f0919bb6-23a6-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.c63b5059e342
Ex 2: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americans-say-government-should-ensure-health-care-coverage/

Unsurprisingly, most people know that even if they're not sick today, one day they or someone they love may be. And it's nice not have to worry about dying or going bankrupt because of financial issues if that happens. It's one of the better things we can spend our tax money on.

Now about the morality of it. And "stealing". Why do I have to pay for a bridge that I will never cross? A sidewalk I don't walk on? A library with books I won't read? A flower I won't smell, or art I can't appreciate? The salaries of politicians I did not vote for, a tax cut that doesn't affect me, or a loophole I can't take advantage of?

It's called a democracy. A civil society, the greater good. That's what we pay for.
Don't pretend that we don't already do these so called "thefts" for things that are much less important to us than healthcare.

The problem in USA is that much more money goes towards corporate profit, and the prices can't even be negotiated by the government, because the politicians are bribed to vote in their favor and spread fearmongering to keep this system intact. Except instead of "bribe" it's called an "extension of speech". Fully legal. And USA is the only nation on earth along with New Zealand where prescription drug ads are allowed to be shown on TV.

An MRI is more costly in America because the U.S. is experiencing the worst of both worlds. Heavy government interference (meaning that we can't have a true competitive healthcare market) but not so much government interference that there are price controls (which have their own consequences mind you, but do "reduce" or more properly shift the cost/price of the proceduce in a round a bout way). 

There are really only 2 ways to reduce prices and only one of those two ways is viable long term. Either create an open free market for healthcare that internally regulates itself, or nationalized healthcare.

The nationalized option can only sustains itself in relatively small homogonized countries which themselves have advantages like being able to rely on the USA for their defense budget http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-19/are-nato-members-paying-their-fair-share-spoiler-alert-no. Even with those advantages, it was only by moving away from full bore socialism that nationalize healthcare poster children like the Scandanavian countries were able to survive https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html.

We can see glimmers a free market system in the U.S. like lasik eye surgery and plastic surgery which demonstrate the power of a free market to lower prices http://healthblog.ncpa.org/why-cant-the-market-for-medical-care-work-like-cosmetic-surgery/#sthash.QJbFCXUI.dpbs. The only problem is that this applies to a tiny fraction of the overall healthcare industry in America. 

For urgent life saving care it is not a matter of finances to some extent in the U.S. either due to EMTALA. There are free and charity based clinics all over the U.S. as well for non life threatening matters. Charititable / voluntary options to help the truly misfortuned would be significantly higher if not for the effect of taxes on charitable giving http://opportunitylives.com/why-high-taxes-hurt-charities/

On to the morality which is the heart of the matter, you said:

"Now about the morality of it. And "stealing". Why do I have to pay for a bridge that I will never cross? A sidewalk I don't walk on? A library with books I won't read? A flower I won't smell, or art I can't appreciate? The salaries of politicians I did not vote for, a tax cut that doesn't affect me, or a loophole I can't take advantage of?"

I don't think you or anyone should have to pay for any of those things if you don't want to, and the fact that we waste money on other things does not make it right to steal and subsequently waste money on healthcare. I don't think we should be taxed to pay for any of the things you mentioned whether it be healthcare or defense or any of it. 

As for your final point, let me repeat, the U.S. is in an ugly spot right inbetween a free market system and a socialized healthcare system. I don't like it, and you don't seem to like it either. We just fundamentally disagree on which direction to go from here. 



Around the Network
DarthMetalliCube on 25 May 2017
StarOcean said:
Unfortunately, no matter what -Trump would've won if it whether it be Hillary or Bernie. Hillary had a higher chance of winning and lost anyway. Bernie had absolutely no chance due to him being considered 'socialist' which to Americans is the second worst thing a politician can be besides Communist. Americans picked a facist over a socialist because they're too uneducated to realize socialism isnt as scary as they think.

But going with the OP, the DNC should be held responsible for their actions but likely wont due to the chaotic nature of the orange attention whore. He'd rather sabotage his own presidency than let others steal his spotlight

I disagree that Bernie definitly would have lost. He might still have lost, but it would have been a much closer race. But I presonally believe he would have won.

For one, Bernie wasn't an all out Socialist, but a Social Democrat. That, as I understand it, is still a capitalist system but with more government regulation ie - having a system far less rigged for the common person. Less crony capitalism essentially, but not necessarily less capitalism. 

Second, I wouldn't call Trump a facist. That is an overly simplistic view, even more so than calling Sanders a socialist. Trump is actually left on some issues (he was even once a Democrat). Nationalist/populist would be a better description. He's sort of a Tea Party president. Maybe has some neo-Fascist attributes, but I don't see him as a Fascist. 

But Anyway, I think Bernie would have had a much better chance to win than Hillary for a couple key reasons - Americans were looking for an anti-establishment candidate, more so than liberal vs conservative, because of the political establishment of the neocons/neolib policies failing us for so long. Bernie and Trump represented that, (yeah Trump might be considered "establishment" in the business world but from a political standpoint he was definitly outside the circle. Second, Bernie had the Rust Belt/Blue Wall of the US. These are the blue collar workers that largely made the difference in the election and helped Trump win. These voters did not trust Clinton, thanks mainly to the establishment Democratic leaders controlling their cities during the decades of massive job loss and deterioration of their cities, along with free trade deals like NAFTA outsourcing of jobs in which they felt cheated. When faced with the pro-free trade, pro-Wallstreet Clinton vs Trump, who advocated for the return of jobs to American and the backing out of bad trade deals, (much of which Bernie shared common ground), they opted for Trump. Now whether this is all hot air as far as Trump's rhetoric or there's something to it is a different story, but he DID reach out to these people with these promises, unlike HRC. This is why Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, nearly NH, etc, all went to Trump) when they haven't gone to a Republican since Reagan. I have no doubt in my mind that Bernie would have snagged these states and probably won the election. 

Bernie was filling arenas, when Hillary could barely fill gymnasiums for their rallies. Bernie would win states while somehow recieving fewer delegates.. Thousands of Bernie voters were forced to wait in absurdly long lines thanks to a vast decrease in polling booths in close states in the DNC primary.. The media was almost UNANIMOUSLY in favor of Hillary. And this doesn't take into account the inheriantly rigged superdelegates the DNC implements. American politics have always been in favor of those with deeper pockets and the brainwashing media, but the DNC is (at least as of late) has been the biggest persecutor of this. There's little doubt in my mind that Bernie would have taken the nomination and probably beaten Trump if not for the DNC's antics of clearly rigging the primaries. 



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden