Because healthcare is more expensive in the US.
So creating single-payer will either
(1) Do nothing to reduce costs
(2) Create a massive depression as the GDP goes down 7%
No, none of those were reasons. They were things that you think are not good. Not a single one had a cause or a listed attribute that was the reason for them being in a state you didn't like. This really would call into question what your native language is.
One final time:
Why is the US uniquely inept, and why would this prevent us from accomplishing what so many other developed countries have?
Let's be honest, we both know that the reason you aren't answering is that you can't.
they are not able to accomplish anything without massive waste, fraud, abuse or neglect.
they are unable to put the needs of the people above their partisan bullshit. They aren't capable of running a playground let alone a health care system.
Because healthcare is more expensive in the US.
So creating single-payer will either
(1) Do nothing to reduce costs
(2) Create a massive depression as the GDP goes down 7%
When people who don't believe the government should do anything get elected, they work to make sure it can't do anything.
why.
koolaid
how is the us different from other countries in this regard and why.
pudding
(1) Perhaps if health "reform" wasn't just code for spend massive amounts of government money they would participate
(2) You seem to have forgotten Medicare part D.
Obama had almost 4 years to make a working eCommerce site and failed embarrassingly at it.
If you can build a simple website in 4 years how can you be trusted to run health care for the entire country?
might want to check with your doc on adjusting your meds.
This is contradicted by empirical evidence from across the developed world.
Reality is so mean to you sometimes, isn't it.
This is contradicted by empirical evidence from across the developed world.
Reality is so mean to you sometimes, isn't it.
or when their core belief is that the other guy is wrong. It goes both ways but this latest crop of repubs are the worst I can remember. Which is why I completely gave up on that party.
Reality dictates what I am saying has to be true.
If spending on health care goes down GDP will go down. The people whose jobs are supported by that 7% of GDP will lose their jobs. Or do you think that the extra 7% of GDP just goes into a fire?
Well I don't know why I'm going to bother because you'll come up with another fun argument but how about the fact that there is not empirical evidence. Govts have been able to make it work for small populations and small land masses but there is not a country out there that has made it work for a population anywhere close the USA nor in terms of the size of our country. Those two combinations are really going to make it expensive and hurt in the long run.
Second you seem to be ignoring the fact that many of the economies the world over are buckling right now under the costs of everything as well and this includes socialized medicine.
Finally, you have to come to the realization that if we do the system the rest of the world is doing that means taxes are going up - somebody like me would probably see a 10% hit. Thanks but not thanks. I pay more than enough in taxes and I have no interest in subsidizing others. You want to tax me to pay for kids healthcare... fine. Adults? No thank you they are on their own.
The tax piece is probably the biggest push back you will see from Americans as well.
Ah yes, another one of the final fallback arguments. "The US is just different so ignore the vast reams of empirical evidence".
This is an irrational argument. You are saying that other countries are buckling under the weight of socialized medicine costs... but they spend LESS than we do. ie: if they got rid of their socialized systems that would make their fiscal situation WORSE not better.
A similarly irrational argument. If total US health spending goes down it is irrelevant if your taxes go up. US health spending is somewhere around 16% of GDP. (extremely) broadly put, that means 16% of what each of us individually produces is consumed by health spending. It makes EVERYTHING cost more and makes you get paid less. If you got a tax increase but got a raise that more than made up for it you still come out ahead. Who cares about tax rates if by doing it we all have more money in our pocket?
Actually false. US Health spending contains a lot private spending it's not govt spending - so yes taxes would go up for all. In my tax group I'd likely pay 7-10% more.
Second the reason why other countries get spend so much less amount to things like rationing for non emergent care, no real experimental treatments, and the fact that the US spends quite a bit in research in development compared to other countries.
Secondly I laid out a very factural argument about land size. You can call that irrational but it's not. There is a reason why high speed internet companies have ignored the central US. The population density is incredibly low and it's incredibly expensive to implement. Healthcare is no different.
Hey, you racist bastard! Doctors can't be asking if you're a citizen - that's racist!Buy a few less tanks, shoot a handful less patriot missiles, buy a couple less jets and America could afford to take care of its citizens. I mean health care with no premiums, where you go the the doctor and all they ask is that you are a citizen. If you want to pay more to get faster service, the private sector can take care of that need.
The US government is uniquely inept to the extent that we can't have a government run health system because it is divided into Democrats who see every issue as an opportunity for social engineering to increase their own power and Republicans who see every issue as an opportunity to protect their big contributors' interests. Whatever the issue, Democrats will use it to create winners and losers for political benefit (as well as to benefit their big contributors.) Republicans will do much the same to protect their constituency, but with even more emphasis on protecting their big contributors. The actual issue (as amply witnessed by Obamacare) will be at best ignored and at worst made worse for most people. As an example, see Medicare, the only insurance policy that requires another insurance policy to protect you from it.See now this is the type of fact-free nonsense that I have no patience for. You have incontrovertible evidence that government run health care in other countries accomplishes the same objectives as well for much less money. Your response is "everything government touches is bad". That's not a response.
As for effective government programs: the interstate highway system, the vast improvement in public health through regulation, FDIC ending bank runs, etc, etc, etc. I could go on for literally pages, but it's totally off topic.
Please explain why the US is uniquely inept to the extent that we can't have a government run health system. Real answers please, not platitudes.
That is actually the THIRD section of my post, but since I recognize that the ability to count to three may well be above you I'll let that go. Health insurance has ALWAYS worked like that. A single man does not pay for maternity insurance; knock up your girlfriend and you're on your own. A single woman is not covered for a prostate exam. And not all health insurance policies cover the same things - until now. One was previously free to buy a policy that covers what one wished at a price mutually agreed upon between seller and buyer. Now everyone must have everything, even though having everything means for a significant number of Americans having nothing at all. If you could afford major medical but not Obamacare, you've just been intentionally screwed out of health insurance.I love that second section. Let's repeat it again, shall we?
"Um, my wife IS a woman, so we're already paying for "women's health". Maternity coverage and "free" birth control - we're beyond that age. Viagra - wasn't using it before, don't need it now. Mental health - nope, not a proggie, I have no emotional scars or daddy issues or raging jealousy to work through. There is absolutely nothing I'm receiving for my extra $1,000 OR the inflated premiums I'll now have to pay."
Can you name some other things you don't need? Maybe you don't want treatment for certain things in the future? Health insurance doesn't work that way. It never has. You never cared before.
Where is the rage about having to pay for birth control or viagra? Surely, you can show me all of your posts over the last 10 years raging about them, right? RIGHT!?
The rest of your post had no content... only rage, so there wasn't much for me to respond to. Maybe mental health services can be put to use after all.
The US government is uniquely inept to the extent that we can't have a government run health system because it is divided into Democrats who see every issue as an opportunity for social engineering to increase their own power and Republicans who see every issue as an opportunity to protect their big contributors' interests. Whatever the issue, Democrats will use it to create winners and losers for political benefit (as well as to benefit their big contributors.) Republicans will do much the same to protect their constituency, but with even more emphasis on protecting their big contributors. The actual issue (as amply witnessed by Obamacare) will be at best ignored and at worst made worse for most people. As an example, see Medicare, the only insurance policy that requires another insurance policy to protect you from it.
And I post that knowing full well you'll accept no slight against your god of Government - but you did ask.
As for your description of our government, you apparently have literally zero knowledge of governments in basically the entire rest of the world.
The onus is on you to show that a relatively unaccountable system of government which has people who cannot get through shutdown after shutdown is capable of doing something far far more complex than obamacare which it still hasn't gotten right, unless as you say the unpublicised purpose is to make health care less affordable for many. "France has this" "Sweden has that". Well this isn't there. This is crazy town in charge, and it can afford to be since there is no way to hold those in charge responsible for the most egregious screw ups. You post irrelevancies and claim they apply here.
So ok. If we hand everything over to the people who can't keep the government running, what mechanism exists to directly remedy in process screw ups? No "well you can write your Congressman" or "there's always the next election".
What assurances do you offer with what WE have, not bloody Japan.
So my example of the US government running a health system would be... the US government running a health system. Next problem?
Are you asking what remedies exist to policies enacted through democratic governance? What remedies exist to you under the old system? This is a nonsensical question
So you don't know the difference between socialized medicine and Medicare. Not surprising. You also choose to ignore the current state of politics as they exist and appeal to nations which have no resemblance in any relevant way, but use them as a model anyway. You haven't explained how something infinitely more complex than the simple tasks Congress hasn't gotten right, being the radically dysfunctional body it is, is going to be just fine. Faith based health care reform. No thanks.
The answer is there is no mechanism which exists to provide the accountability which other nations have and it's a perfectly reasonable thing when some want to give them control of our health. YMMV.
The US government already manages a health plan that covers every American 65 and over, constituting approximately half of US health spending and does it in a more efficient manner than our private sector. That would just be a starting point too, as there are a lot more savings to be had.
So my example of the US government running a health system would be... the US government running a health system. Next problem?
Are you asking what remedies exist to policies enacted through democratic governance? What remedies exist to you under the old system? This is a nonsensical question.
Except of course the post you quoted said 'national insurance policy', which is what Medicare is for those 65 and older. Not surprising that you would be so confused. lol.
You think other nations have no resemblance in any relevant way? Please tell me what aspects of a state you consider 'relevant'. My guess? You have put zero thought into that.
There is no mechanism to provide accountability over government action other than the mechanism that we have used for two centuries or so while building the greatest state the world has ever seen. Whether or not you think that's good enough is your business, but let's not pretend that you're not just desperately searching for ways to justify a conclusion you already made a long time ago.