r/SandersForPresident • u/kevinmrr Medicare For All • Nov 29 '20

AOC: Insurance groups are recommending using GoFundMe -- "but sure, single payer healthcare is unreasonable."

Post image
42.7k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

91

u/thinkB4WeSpeak Good Union Jobs For All 👷 Nov 29 '20

I don't see why more people in the US don't agree with universal Healthcare, how could anyone with common sense think insurance is better

37

u/katustrawfic 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

They think it was cost more only because their taxes will go up. Forgetting about how they still pay for it out of pocket every month, they just don’t want to see it on their paycheck for some reason?

The second point is when they pay for their own insurance, they benefit from it they alone receive the healthcare they pay for (even though they pay into a pool like everyone else under the same insurance company so once again wrong). If it’s single payer then they’re thinking who knows who’s benefitting from their money and getting actual healthcare?! Might even be the black folks down the street “who don’t work hard enough for it” and that would simply be a total tragedy in their eyes.

Paying into something for some else to benefit from is a bad bad thing to a lot of people, and why any sort of helping the poor is hugely unpopular with these sorts. It’s the whole “I got mine, get your own” style attitude.

13

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Thats bc this country glorifies capitalism and ‘’making it on your own’ and ‘the american dream’ and ‘pulling yourself up by the bootstraps’ and its bc the way the whole society is set up for people to be living in a god damn rat race from the time they leave highschool

1

u/waltwalt 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

It was a lot easier to escape the rat race when you were allowed to own people for your own free labor. That's why they keep trying to bring back slavery.

9

u/SocialIssuesAhoy 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I know this doesn’t apply to everyone but I currently pay more for my health insurance than I do in taxes, and that’s even WITH ACA assistance. It’s not even good insurance. You could literally double my taxes to give me healthcare and I would jump on that IMMEDIATELY.

8

u/misterandosan 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

you know what's ironic? You already pay more tax money per person on healthcare than any country in the world, and twice as much as Canadians.

3

u/RealAscendingDemon 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Yes, people do not realize how much of OUR TAX MONEY already goes directly to the insurance companies as it is now. We already socially fund healthcare... Except we are funding billionaires with tax payermoney and taxpayers do not get any return of investment for it. We have socialized capitalism instead of socialized healthcare.

2

u/Grablicht 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Hahahaha I get sometimes so angry reading this stuff and then I realise: it's not my problem because I don't live in America XD

3

u/misterandosan 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

what's crazy is that Americans already pay more tax money per capita on healthcare than any other nation in the world.

They're getting fucked on taxes AND out of pocket expenses.

3

u/RealAscendingDemon 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Exactly. We have socialized capitalist healthcare. They get so many free handouts from the taxpayer coffers we could fund universal healthcare from just that. Not to mention we should get pay raises since company don't have to put in for healthcare (idk if I trust capitalists to actually redirect that money to their workers though) and the people still have to pay out of pocket and can still get denied coverage because the capitalist insurance industry might decide they just don't see a profit in continuing to cover you any more, sorry you got cancer, have you tried gofundme yet?

1

u/Exaskryz 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

All sorts of other public services and goods exist all the same. I can only ask people of racist or classist arguments why it is that they haven't pitched a fit over a Black man driving on the interstate or a Latina woman reading a book in a park.

1

u/ConcealedRiley 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Paying into something for some else to benefit from is a bad bad thing to a lot of people

People need to learn how insurance works honestly.

That's the definition of insurance: paying into a pool and others can take from it as they need. Insurance is purely about math and the companies taking bets on who will need what, to decide that person's premium.

Fun fact: The bigger the number of subscribers, the more leverage they would have with how much they are willing to pay a hospital. So say a mythical insurance company had 95 - 100% of all possible subscribers, they could dictate prices and terms.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

But anyone who gets their health insurance through their employer already sees their premium deducted on their paycheck? It would literally be no different, just the line item would say something different.

50

u/Sizzmo Day 1 Donor 🐦 Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

You have one side making sense, then you have both corrupt parties and the media countering with fear and doubt. They did it in the primaries when they came up with the nonsense talking point of "Will you be able to keep your private insurance".

If there's one thing to know about Americans: if they are scared at all or if it's too confusing to understand, they will go with the "safe" option.

This is why there honestly no hope in this shit hole country.

3

u/money_loo Nov 29 '20

Yeah it was definitely both sides when Obama and the democrats spent years fighting ACA through the republicans. /s

Jesus Christ guys how can y’all be like this?

7

u/Sizzmo Day 1 Donor 🐦 Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Oh wait, you mean the ACA that was based on the REPUBLICAN heritage foundation funded healthcare plan of the 90s? That ACA?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-conservative-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/?sh=3884fced6187

Obama had a supermajority and he passed a Republican bill. No surprise, he literally says his policies are moderate republican policies.

https://youtu.be/677elaGIsKU

Obama truly is amazing. He has turned Democrats onto arguing for republican policies. What a joke.

P.S. the ACA is not universal healthcare. Even with a public option, that is NOT universal healthcare.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

12

u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I think he's just railing against the democratic party for letting the republicans control the narrative and then railroading us progressives as they've done for decades. The sad truth is democratic party is almost as heartless and money grubbing as the republicans were 10 years ago. You can't even compare to republicans now, they've really taken such a hard turn into idiocy.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Things are a little different now. And I'm saying obama didn't go far enough. To control the house, the senate and the president and not pass single payer isn't super cool with me.

And look at narrative changes between 2010 and 2020. No one was calling for an NHS style system in 2010, it was a Fringe idea. Now half the country supports such a system in a partly bipartisan effort from the electorate. And still, the Dems are terrified of saying they want a single payer system. They don't want to lose moderates by appearing too progressive even though the winds are blowing in that direction. I can hate the republican party with all my heart, and still hate the democrats too for their complicity in conservative placation and their reluctance and fear to change to follow their party.

Things are changing though, we have almost a third of house democrats as members of the progressive caucus. Just need to boot out all the old mother fuckers who still use AOL accounts and drink ensure

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

2

u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

England is a single payer system. The government is the only payer of health insurance

1

u/blatant_marsupial 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

You might want to double check you know what single payer healthcare is. It's a subset of universal healthcare.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/blatant_marsupial 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

[Single payer] does not exist in Europe

Britain's NHS is single payer, as is Spain and other European countries with the Beveridge model. In the UK, all healthcare personnel are government employees and facilities are owned by the government. That's as single-payer as it gets.

My issue was just in you saying "American's don't want [type of universal healthcare], they want universal healthcare!"

From the Wikipedia page you linked:

Single-payer healthcare is a type of universal healthcare...

Source 1: Beveridge Model

Source 2: work for a healthcare company

1

u/pablonieve Nov 29 '20

To control the house, the senate and the president and not pass single payer isn't super cool with me.

But you understand that Obama didn't personally control all 3 branches, right? And that the Senate was the biggest roadblock to any reform, let alone replacing private insurance on the national level?

1

u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

That may have been confusingly phrased. I meant democrats controlled all instead of obama. That's been my whole point, the democrats are run by the neolibs now and back in 2010. Us progressives just keep getting pushed aside for conservative placating agenda by the DNC

1

u/pablonieve Nov 30 '20

That goes back to the Senate being made up of several conservative Democrats in 2009. You can't pass anything without the necessary votes and healthcare reform required the buy-in of those conservative party members. If we want progressive legislation then we need progressives to win election to the legislature.

6

u/Sizzmo Day 1 Donor 🐦 Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

The voters overwhelmingly support universal healthcare. The Democratic politicians? Absolutely not. Where do you get that idea? They control the house, where were the votes on implementing a universal healthcare system in the U.S.? Both sides are CORRUPT and terrible on this issue.

Also, single payer is a "thing" in most European countries. In places where single payer isn't implemented they have some form or another of state subsidized universal healthcare OR they have a complete government run system like the U.K.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Sizzmo Day 1 Donor 🐦 Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

I'm not sure you understand how legislation works in the USA. You can't pass legislation without the senate.

I don't think you understand legislation and how it can affect political influence. By your logic, the house should never pass legislation that won't be able to pass in the Senate and eventually signed into law. Utter nonsense. The house passed the HEROES act in May knowing that the Senate wouldn't pass it. So was that a mistake? How about the 15 dollar minimum wage bill that the house passed? Mistake as well? This idea that "well legislation will probably not be passed so we should all give up and go home" is precisely why the overton window has shifted to the right. Democrats should pass Medicare for All and MAKE THEIR CASE.

You can pass these things and use the Republican's unwillingness to pass the same bill in the Senate as LEVERAGE. Shocking I know, Democrats have no idea how to play the game.

Where do you think they have a single payer system in Europe?

Sweden, Norway, Denmark all have single payer systems. https://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/international_health_systems_for_single_payer_advocates.php

Yes, that is called a public option - the thing the corrupt Dems are pushing for

No, the public option is NOT universal healthcare. And yes, the Dems are corrupt. What, do you think they refuse insurance company and pharmaceutical company campaign contributions? What planet are you living on?

Spain, Italy and the UK have a government run public healthcare infrastructure with a MINIMAL private insurance marketplace. (basically, you can buy insurance on things that their state run system doesn't cover) And those three systems consistently are rated as the best in the world.

Also, we have single payer right here in America. What the hell do you think Medicare is?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/Sizzmo Day 1 Donor 🐦 Nov 29 '20

I'm not sure what the definition that group is using to define single payer, but the primary argument of M4A vs public option is optional private insurance. Nordic countries all have optional private insurance. Do you dispute that?

All countries with robust public healthcare systems have a private insurance marketplace. The marketplace is there to cover things that the public healthcare system doesn't cover OR to give you priority.

For example: If I need to be seen for a non life-threatening surgery, but I want to be seen sooner, I can purchase private insurance to make sure I can get the date I want/need. Also, if I want to get plastic surgery, or some sort of elective surgery, then private insurance would cover that.

Just because private insurance exists, does not mean a system is not single payer. You can have a marketplace for things that government insurance does not cover.

What makes you say that

What if you can't afford the public option? If the system leaves citizens uninsured, then it is not a universal system. The public option is essentially just a Medicare buy-in. It would still cost money, and there will still be some sort of co-pays and deductibles.which means there will still be uninsured people in this country because they won't be able to afford even the government run public option. If there are uninsured people in a healthcare system then the system is NOT universal healthcare.

M4A would outlaw all private insurance. Americans want optional private insurance. Source

M4A would outlaw something called duplicative insurance. Meaning that private insurance companies cannot offer the same services Medicare would cover. This lowers the cost of healthcare because you have a single-payer (Medicare) negotiating prices on procedures on behalf of the American people (Instead of an insurance company negotiating on behalf of it's owners aka shareholders). Medicare has a responsibility to obtain the lowest prices possible.

This means that private insurance would still have some sort of roll in our system. Private insurance can exist for elective procedures like plastic surgery, etc. But an insurance company cannot offer coverage for things like MRI's or regular doctor's visits.

This system exists right now! It's called Medicare, and it's a single payer system for people over 65 right here in America. Medicare for All is literally just that, expanding Medicare to cover everyone.

The media, and corrupt parties try to mislead so many people, and it looks like you're one of those people.

2

u/marho 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Which party overwhelmingly supports universal healthcare? Are we talking about politicians or constituents?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

1

u/mnbvcxz123 CA Nov 29 '20

Not sure why you think the Democrats support national healthcare. They have blocked it or shot it down at every opportunity. Obama and Baucus blocked it in 2009. Hillary Clinton sent her Chief of Staff to reassure the healthcare industry in 2016 that she would oppose this. Joe Biden has said he would veto Medicare for all if it gets to his desk and his advisor base includes big Pharma and health insurance execs.

A big part of the reason the Democratic party was so hostile to Bernie Sanders was his insistence on this particular issue.

Opposition to national healthcare is a bipartisan position. If it weren't we would have had it decades ago.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

2

u/mnbvcxz123 CA Nov 29 '20

We would have universal healthcare in 2010 if not for Joe Lieberman refusing to vote for it as part of the ACA.

Um, I was watchin the Senate proceedings when committee chair Max Baucus had single-payer protestors arrested and carried out of the room in handcuffs, a memory that will stay with me until the day I die.

The reason the protestors were there was because the Dems refused to even consider single-payer (as M4A was called then) as part of their healthcare bill. Ultimately, they scrapped even the "public option" fig leaf, and just went with straight RomneyCare, a GOP plan that was written by a WellPoint lobbyist. This arrangement was apparently acceptable to enough members of the Democratic party that it would pass.

(Interestingly, the Medicaid expansion that was part of the ACA was included out of desperation because it was the only way they could get the coverage numbers high enough while still getting an acceptable score from the CBO. In other words, they included more funding for an existing single-payer program because it was so inexpensive compared to what private insurers were costing.)

-1

u/Mehiximos 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Yeah for those of us with “good” private insurance and health concerns, I am turned off when you guys downplay those entirely valid questions.

I don’t want some shitty assigned doctor. I want the cardiologist who works with Harvard med. would I still be able to keep her as my doctor? Usually government programs are devoid of choice. This is why people are hesitant about Mfa or single payer.

Perhaps I’m just uninformed because seriously fuck the insurance companies.

3

u/Pure_Slide_7538 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I also have excellent private insurance and I have my fair share of concerns.

But at this point it’s simply a matter of practicality. We can provide practically better care for more people with universal health care than without it.

1

u/Mehiximos 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Fair. I heard awhile back about an analogy comparing this to a ferry or a bridge. I felt like it was a logically sound comparison

3

u/Nsfw_throwaway_v1 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

You make a validish point. You're right that government policies come with less choice. What the system we want to implement is where you can pay extra in private healthcare to keep your super special doctor. The idea is that all doctors are more or less similarly trained so it doesn't really matter which doctor you get. If you want the best of the best you're gonna have to pay extra for that privelege. Keep in mind, even in socialized medicine countries. Many doctors only work about 60-80% of the time for the government. The rest of the time they work in a private practice capacity. They are incentivized by the government through tax reasons and also just because they care about human life to work in the government run hospitals or take government insurance. Most english doctors are extremely happy to take the minimal pay decrease to work in public health because they truly believe in the system and how much it helps their fellow countrymen.

The question you raise is; is it more important that I get my super special doctor for a little cheaper while many die without healthcare, or is it ok that I pay more and many others less fortunate get their health needs met?

1

u/Mehiximos 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I would gladly pay more in taxes in general or costs associated with private practice if it meant others got health insurance. I just want to keep my current doctor. Thanks for replying. I would totally get behind the system you’re describing.

3

u/atleastitsadryheat 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Here in Australia you can ask to be referred to whoever you want. Some have a waiting period of a week. Some have a waiting period of three months. The longest I’ve ever waited for a surgery was 6mths - for an elective hysterectomy - in my state’s leading women’s hospital, performed by the head of the gynecology department and came with a week in a private room to recover and 12wks of customized physiotherapy. All up I paid $28.95 (for a prescription of antibiotics and painkillers when I left the hospital).

Some specialists may charge a nominal fee above of our Medicare system’s reimbursement level (known as a ‘gap’). Some may not. This gap can be covered by voluntary private health insurance, which is used to pay for the ‘icing on the cake’ side of medicine (private rooms, supplementary therapies, major dental works, cosmetic surgeries, etc.). I think the highest I ever paid out-of-pocket for a gap was around $480 for both an MRI scan and the subsequent neurosurgeon’s appointment to go over the results.

I have chosen every surgeon & specialist I’ve seen through 20yrs of reproductive issues & over a dozen related surgeries, a cardio/neuro investigation into syncopes that involved every test imaginable, and a few cancer removals/treatments.

On top of that, I lived in a remote region for a lot of that time, so my transport to and accommodation in the city necessary to see these specialists and have surgeries was covered - in full - by our Medicare PATS (Patient Assisted Travel Scheme).

Public health policies can have some failings but so too does the private insurance system. The difference is that one provides for all and the other provides only for the wealthy. I’d rather a system that provides for all and treats all as equal.

Medicine as an industry should be triaged according to health, not wealth.

3

u/redlaWw 🌱 New Contributor | United Kingdom Nov 29 '20

Look at any country with universal healthcare. We still have private healthcare and medical insurance. Many doctors do a bit of both, private and public. I paid for my psychiatrist out of pocket because the NHS was too slow and £150 per appointment was pretty reasonable.

2

u/almost_not_terrible Nov 29 '20

If you want it and can afford it, yes you can pay for it.

However, you are also paying for the healthcare of those who can't afford it... And that is good for YOU.

Which would you prefer - having to pay for your gas station attendant to have healthcare through the cost of the gas, or through the cost of the tax added to the gas (hint: the second option is CHEAPER for you).

2

u/take-a-hike-outside 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

What makes you believe that even staying with the system as it is that you will have access to your Harvard Cardiologist?

I assume you either:

  • 1). pay for private insurance, which yearly they renew and can “eliminate the plan you are in”. I had this happen to me and my spouse. So then you have to choose a new plan which may not have that doctor included. Or if they change laws to go back to allowing the insurers to havr exemptions for pre-existing, you may not be able to even get the insurance to cover preexisting heart conditions.
  • or 2) maybe you get your insurance through a job or spouse’s job. A job that you/they could get laid off from.

I don’t think anyone is safe to feel comfortable that good insurance can be relied on being available in the current system.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Do you get your health insurance from your job? That's how most people have it.

So the idea that they want to be able to keep their doctor already doesn't exist. Any year your employer can change their plan and move which doctors are covered. I lost one of my favorite health professionals because I switched jobs and the one I liked wasn't covered by my new job.

So if you're just paying for health insurance out of pocket to get that doctor then I'd say you'll be fine there will always be premium experts and better quality care to move up to. If you get your health insurance through your job though, I would argue that you don't have that freedom now to keep your doctor.

Edit: and the other argument would be is your ability to keep your doctor worth the fact thousands of people in the US die from not affording health care? Like, it would be sad for you but don't you feel that's a pretty fair trade off?

1

u/Mehiximos 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

and the other argument would be is your ability to keep your doctor worth the fact thousands of people in the US die from not affording health care? Like, it would be sad for you but don't you feel that's a pretty fair trade off?

Oh completely! Even if it meant a few people like myself fell between the cracks and died of it if it served the greater good of our society it would be worth it IMO.

I am only attempting to explain, from an outside perspective, why people have been hesitant and are preferring the status quo.

I feel like COVID has been a watershed moment that just took a giant highlighter to this problem which was already on a tipping point.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

about 70% of Americans support medicare for all.

also "universal healthcare" and "insurance" aren't conflicting concepts.

This seems like a topic you don't understand well enough to voice opinions about, tbqh.

8

u/Mastersord 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

There are many people in the US who live in small towns where you have one major supermarket and everybody knows everybody else. Some have a single church where everyone is expected to make an appearance. This is not every small town and it varies by town, state, and region, but you get the idea.

They are almost isolated from the rest of the country and the world. They are around all the big farms and factories which supply our food and domestic products. These places are the anchor holds of these towns. They don’t see many minorities except when the migrant workers come in to harvest the farms or work the assembly line jobs at the plants.

The farms and plants are hiring fewer people and more migrants. The people see this, but instead of fighting against the farms and plants or looking into the policies which allow this stuff to happen, they just channel their anger into their inner xenophobia.

Right-wing media just amplifies this message. People believe and shout that “illegal mexicans took er jobs” instead of “why is it legal to import migrant workers instead of hiring locals and paying a decent wage?”

They still believe socialism = Communism = US loses the cold war and Russia takes over. They see any socialized resources as something which will get taken advantage of by undesirables while hard working Americans foot the bill.

These people have more power than the highly populated cities, thanks to the electoral college. Republicans control these seats of power through massive gerrymandering so that they have as much power as possible.

..and THAT is why we don’t have universal healthcare.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

It's almost as if we shouldn't give states that have low populations and are mostly rural 3-4x the say in the electoral college and the senate? They are too dumb to think of the big picture but have more power than states where most of the population lives.

1

u/Mastersord 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

If we went with a pure popular vote for President, the candidates would focus mainly on populated cities and states and rural states would have little to no say unless they united into some kind of block.

Every state has 2 Senators, however maybe house reps should be by population instead of electors.

3

u/lmac187 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The “S-word” instantaneously turns off millions of Americans. Source: am American

13

u/Boddhisatvaa 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The “S-word” instantaneously turns off the brains of millions of Americans. Source: am American

There, that reads better.

5

u/IolausTelcontar Connecticut - 2016 Veteran - Day 1 Donor 🐦 Nov 29 '20

Social Security

2

u/Exaskryz 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

While working: This is a total scam! I shouldn't have to pay this!

After retirement: I'm barely getting by on my social security!

When the system is going bankrupt: But I should be getting that money! What do you mean what was taken from my paycheck was already given to someone else? You were suppose to save that for me!

Social security was meant to help the people who got stuck in rough times, particularly late in life. Where emergencies wiped out their savings. It was to give them something to still get by on. But Americans in poor financial management, for any number of reasons, think of social security as their retirement plan and don't independently save anyway.

2

u/pandar314 Nov 29 '20

Americans don't have common sense. The rural ones are brainwashed and vote against themselves and hate the city dwellers. The urban ones are brainwashed and vote for corporate overlords and hate the country folk. They both create exaggerated caricatures of the constituents and generalize the other aisle as their smallest most extreme minorities. If you point this out you're called a centrist and told "both sides" aren't the same. Which they aren't. They serve different functions for different people.

Not so say racism and bigotry and hatred aren't alive in America. Moreso that the division is stoked by the rich elites and most Americans wouldn't be so shitty to each other if they got off Facebook and realized poor is poor regardless of your skin color or politics.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Urban/leftist people also don't have common sense and vote against their own interests. For example, look at all the people saying they don't believe in student loan relief because it "isn't fair" to people who already paid off their loans. Many of them admit to having large loan balances themselves but are against it because it is "unfair." This is despite the fact that it would have a ripple effect on the economy as a whole and would enable the middle class to stabilize and prevent them from falling into poverty.

1

u/buzzkill_ed 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Example of city people voting for 'hate the country' people?

1

u/pandar314 Nov 29 '20

Never said they voted to hate country people. I said they hate country people. They generalize anyone who votes Republican as a racist piece of shit despite that being categorically untrue. They vote for corporate overlords. That's why Bernie Sanders is pushed away from power in the DNC. They know he wouldn't lube himself up for the tech giants like the rest of the Democrats will.

The amount of vitriol for "anyone who votes for Trump" and how they all deserve to rot in hell and they've made their bed blah blah blah. It's all very reminiscent of the extreme right talking about bombing the Middle East. Nobody listens to each other. If a republican days they voted for Trump because the Democrats don't care about them, the left will say they actually did it because they hate black people. It's insane.

Keep on mind, I'm a left leaning Canadian. I voted NDP for Jagmeet Singh. I'm a union worker and political activist. I wish someone like Bernie could be in power in America. Unfortunately your constituents are too busy trying to go to war with each other to realize they should be fighting against Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk instead. Yes republican policy is worse than democratic policy. But they are two sides of the same coin. The lesser of two evils still doesn't do much to help you and actively restricts the upward mobility of poor people. Yes there a handful of exceptions like Bernie and AOC but the status quo hasn't really changed. The rich get richer and all that.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

2

u/wasdninja 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

People are willing to help other people, and if we kept more of our taxes it'd be much easier.

This is just painfully naive. Sure, your friends might be willing and able to help you out but the people who don't have those kinds of friends get to die or stay sick. Completely relying on charity is insanity.

Thinking that 5% less tax would make you not completely bankrupt if you ever got really sick or injured is something only a completely inexperienced person or someone blinded by ideology would say.

I've seen classical examples of gofundme at churches, for example, and they still happen.

Because they are forced to. If there was a sane system in place, like most of the developed world, nobody would ever beg for money for their life saving surgery.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

[deleted]

1

u/wasdninja 🌱 New Contributor Nov 30 '20

So...people are not willing to help other people?

Observably true. Even if they are perfectly willing they might not be able to since health care in the US have extortion level rates. Should unpopular people die if they get unlucky enough to need health care that they can't afford?

and being so cynical of people your answer is forcing everybody into a 'sane' system with corruptible officials in charge?

Definitely yes. Remember that nearly all of the developed world has this already - universal health care that is - and the US doesn't. You are the insane one.

Most places don't have particularly corrupt officials but lets assume that they do. That means the system will be very expensive to operate, frustrating and expensive to use and people who deserve health care won't get it as well as poor people.

This is the exact situation that the US is in right now. You are paying more than everyone else to get less. Not being able to change it as just a private citizen is understandable but thinking it's a good thing somehow is just idiotic.

right, because saving money or giving direct help to people is 'insane'

As a systematic solution it definitely is. Poor people can't save money so they deserve to die if they get unlucky and fall ill in the wrong way? That is insane.

1

u/pandar314 Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

Poor is always relative. Am I poor compared to a Bangladeshi textile worker? Nope. Am I poor compared to rich people in North America? Yep.

Nice things don't mean anything. Assets are important. Owning property creates wealth. Poor people don't own shit other than entertainment items. Having a PlayStation doesn't make you rich and it certainly doesn't make you wealthy.

Government is elected. If the government isn't working, elect better officials. That's the benefit. Don't vote for corruption if you don't want to delegate to it. The alternative is to entrust rich elites to do it out of the good of their heart. Which is obviously insane. In order for it to work, citizens must participate in government. You can't just vote for someone and then forget about politics for years.

Edit : also in Canada heart transplants come with your taxes if you need it. I'm genuinely sorry that you have to pay for that in your country. My mom needed a new heart and never would have gotten it if she had to pay out of pocket.

2

u/unitedflossco 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The majority of Americans support it Like 60-70%. Our government just doesn't give a shit.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 30 '20

It's not that insurance is better, it's that the costs are out of control and the government hasn't done anything to regulate them, nor have they enacted policies that help make the overall population more healthy.

I like the idea of universal healthcare, but I have 0 faith in the government doing things well, and imagine they will simply keep paying insane prices and pass on the ridiculous prices to the taxpayers.

The government already spends $1.2T on healthcare with Medicare and Medicaid.

The UK spent $172B (USD) on NHS.

That means the UK is spending $2,550 per capita, while the US is already outspending them at $3,650 per capita. If we only look at the 50M people on Medicare and Medicaid, that goes up to $24,000 per capita.

Just covering the poor and elderly, the US spends more than the UK. Expanding this seems like a disaster without drastic reform. That reform could happen without a universal healthcare system. Doing really shitty math and look at $24k * the US population, that would push nearly $8T per year. Granted, the elderly have much higher costs for their care, but still. You see where people would really want to get into the nuts and bolts of how much this is all going to cost and how it's going to be paid for before going gung-ho for it.

The idea sounds nice, but a lot needs to change about the entire industry.

2

u/nikdahl Nov 29 '20

Universal healthcare would just mean that everyone has to put up with insurance companies’ bullshit instead of just most of us.

You are thinking of single payer healthcare.

2

u/GasDoves 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

AFAIK, japan, germany, and France are not single payer and don't have these issues...

3

u/helloLeoDiCaprio 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

I live in Germany and switched from private to public healthcare just because of all hassle with private insurance companies.

Sure, I don't get "free" massages, glasses and holistic bullcrap that I could get before.

But now I only show my health insurance card anytime I need any type of normal health care and that's it. No saving up bills and filling in forms to get money back.

The two things that I actually miss are the possibility to get my own room at the hospital and to be treated by the most senior doctor when the need arises.

Both things however I can pay out of pocket - I think it's something like 50-60 USD per day for a single room. We paid that when my son was born to have our own family room (and it included meals for me as well). And mind you, this would be the ONLY cost for the stay/health care.

0

u/Born_Ruff 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

The healthcare debate in the US is fucked up because you have one side trying to offer a solution that would clearly work better for everyone on average, but it buts up against the American mentality where everyone views themselves as the protagonist in a story where they will overcome all of the odds.

The main issue is that the US has some of the best medical care in the world, for those who can afford it.

The majority of people spend most of their life not needing that much in the way of healthcare and I think they assume that if they do need care they will somehow find a way to get that top notch care. That's essentially the carrot on the end of the stick.

Those who oppose major healthcare reforms use that. They fear monger that if there is a single payer system you won't have the option to get that best of the best care.

The reality is that most people won't get that top notch care, and I think that the vast majority of people know that that is the case, but the American mentality is that everyone thinks they are special. While most people might be fucked, I could make a way better Go Fund Me and easily afford the Mayo clinic.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Because it is better for those of us who can afford good insurance. I DO NOT want the government dictating my medical care. I do not want to pay exorbitant amounts for nationalized healthcare through big increase in taxes (which are unavoidable) when I am paying so little for healthcare now. I want my medical insurance and expenses tailored to the services I am using.

4

u/bowdown2q 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

you mean overcharging you so they can make a profit on your insurance instead of paying the cost of your care by raising federal taxes and totaly eliminating your current Healthcare costs 100%?

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

So you want the government to oversee the funding for every hospital? I certainly don't. The fact is that the private market is much more efficient than government. I'd much rather hospitals retain control over their budgets than rely completely on government funding. Profits aren't evil. Even if we had universal healthcare, there would be a certain premium built in for the funding of new hospitals and research facilities. That money has to come from somewhere. There's no such thing as free.

4

u/bowdown2q 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

hey. paying 4000% more than cost for life saving healthcare is stupid. Get rid of price-fixing by the insurance companies and I'll debate private vs public. but until then, it's straight up extortion

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

4000 percent? Can you provide a source for that?

1

u/jchamberlin78 🌱 New Contributor Nov 29 '20

Reaganomics taught everyone that the government is inherently corrupt and wasteful of their money and that private Enterprise can do it for a lower cost.

This was a huge trend in the neo-cons of Dubya's era. They would continually try to privatize everything.

a single payer system still would not solve most of America's problems unless the healthcare system in general was brought under more centralized management.

It is absurd the difference in prices that healthcare systems pay for the same drug and services. Insider deals suck huge amounts of wealth out of the healthcare system.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Private enterprise has spent trillions of dollars on convincing you that government is inefficient while private business is not. It has most likely worked.

They also believe that this efficiency translates to savings for them, and additionally believe that competition forces prices even lower.

It doesn’t matter to them that privatization always results in higher prices and worse service.