https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html
QuoteThe vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.
So naturally, vast swathes of Democratic and Republican politicians are shouting it from the rooftops, right? Nope.
Republicans...not so much. Quite the opposite, in fact. The obvious take-away is that they don't care much about their base's opinions, much less their health, just their votes.
Meanwhile, Democrats have been explicitly warned to not talk about single payer (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/08/democratic-single-payer-health-care-ads-609066) because it's "divisive" (to who?)
Quote“We’re out of power right now, we can’t make any of that happen,†he said of single payer health care.
If only there were some issue wildly popular with the people that you could latch onto to win back support...
There will have to be some really major changes in America before we can even hope to get single payer health care. I don't think it will ever happen - but I can hope.
I hope too. But 62 years have taught me that Santa Claus isn't real. First we have to get rid of Medicare fraud ... by kicking all the D-party members off it?
The massive 'for profit' capitalistic principle will not go down without screaming and shouting.
It's easier to call it 'socialism' and ignore the benefits to society. Heck, it could infringe on the profit margin of 'for profit' insurance.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 29, 2018, 02:53:40 PM
There will have to be some really major changes in America before we can even hope to get single payer health care. I don't think it will ever happen - but I can hope.
I don't think I've said this before, but my biggest objection to Obamacare was that it was a way of delaying health care. It's just a glorified reinstatement of the status quo. Democrats applauded and said it was the first baby step toward single payer. I see it as a step in the opposite direction intended to delay single payer. How is forced purchase of insurance from private insures a step toward single payer? The longer we are entrenched in Obamacare, the more we will adjust to the fact that that 70% referred to will never be heard, and people will begin to throw up their hands in surrender.
I might concede that helping the poor is a baby step, but until everyone understands that buying insurance through private insurers, even for the poor subsidized by the middle class, single payer will not happen until we have a revolution, a quiet one I hope, but a revolution none the less. The problem as I see it, revolves around private insurers. They would have to be taken out of the equation.
Had the Republicans been successful in killing Obamacare, I would not have minded. It would have been gone and a new attempt to get universal single payer could be put into effect. Obamacare looms over us like a cloud. I don't think single payer will happen while I am alive, but so be it.
My prediction is that there will be single payer eventually, but I don't predict anything like other countries. It will be minimal coverage, requiring out of pocket purchase of supplemental insurance from private insurers who will go to work lobbying to make single payer more and more minimal, so they can step in with ever more costly supplemental insurance, which will make them as wealthy as they are now. But that is the limit of both my optimism and pessimism. We will have single payer, but it won't be much, and there will be no safeguards from being financially wiped out. There will be the traditional exclusions and loopholes limiting coverage of the costly supplementals. That's my prediction, but I also predict that I won't be around to see if I'm right. So I'll put my "I told you so" on record now, which really isn't that satisfying.
Forcing people to buy a private product (or small set of private products) is corrupt as hell. Mandatory single payor would be the same, but simpler. A real plan would be Medicare for all ... except you usually need a private insurance wrapper around that particular shit sandwich.
Providing people with crappy insurance at high price (instead of just denying insurance) isn't that much of an improvement.
If you want to provide more medical care, go become a nurse or a doctor, and try to provide services at low cost.
Otherwise one is just the commissar of BS.
QuoteHad the Republicans been successful in killing Obamacare, I would not have minded. It would have been gone and a new attempt to get universal single payer could be put into effect. Obamacare looms over us like a cloud. I don't think single payer will happen while I am alive, but so be it.
I want to agree with you, and for the most part I do, but I do have a problem with this.
If the Republicans repealed Obamacare, that would have been it... it's not like they were going to propose a better solution any time soon, and the Democrats would not have been able to reinstate it for awhile yet. Additionally the Supreme Court has now been loaded with conservatives which means they always have a trump card to hamper it any chance they get.
If Obamacare failed, why would the Democrats go even further "left" (see; sensible)? If anything it probably would have just pushed them further right since that has been the Democratic strategy for most of the modern era; if you are accused of being too "left" (even if you are at best moderate), move further right to try to draw in voters rather than try to be the opposition party.
Tom Morello had a great interview with Trevor Noah a night or two ago where he talked about his time working for a Democratic Senator in California for two years as a coordinator or something along those lines. His role was essentially to make sure that the Senator was, at all times, receiving calls and attending events from big-money donors, and those donations and the attention did not come for free. He then told the story about why he quit politics and plans on never going back in; a woman called him wanting to speak to the Senator because Mexicans were moving into her neighbourhood and she wanted to know what the Senator would do about it... he promptly told her to go to hell and hung up.
Rather than being praised, he spent the next two weeks being berated and yelled at for hanging up on her by the Senator and his staff, he quit and the rest is history.
The point of bringing that story up is that, fundamentally, the issues America face are fundamentally rooted more in corruption (legalized bribery in lobbying) than in any ideological difference. Both the left and the right take money from the medical insurance and medical care industries and they have no intention on crossing their funders.
Until campaign finance reform is passed and lobbying is extremely limited or banned all together... I just don't see any real, substantial changes being made across the board, not just in healthcare but in essentially every facet of our governance.
Wasn't the age requirements for Medicare supposed to have decreased bit by bit until everyone was covered? I think I heard that somewhere.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 30, 2018, 01:17:27 PM
I want to agree with you, and for the most part I do, but I do have a problem with this.
If the Republicans repealed Obamacare, that would have been it... it's not like they were going to propose a better solution any time soon, and the Democrats would not have been able to reinstate it for awhile yet.
I've considered this too. It's likely Democrats would use this to make the claim that there isn't enough support or consensus on healthcare (even if that's not true of the electorate). And frankly I doubt key Democrats want healthcare to begin with.
NPR did a piece awhile back pointing out that Obamacare failed to please many Democrats, and the population at large didn't like it. Republicans seized on this and made repeal a campaign issue, but failed to deliver probably because some constituents benefited. Now the tables are turned, and preserving Obamacare is the Democrat's campaign issue. So said NPR. Although most everything the party currently emails me is about redistricting and gerrymandering. That seems to be the watchword as the hot button of the moment. If the Dems win, they won't deliver on redistricting reform, since they will be in power, and Obamacare will be left alone because it's easier to do nothing than to do something.
But I agree that an extended lag in a healthcare vacuum is a risk since Democrats didn't fare well by passing Obamacare, and Republicans didn't fare well in repealing it. Healthcare could be a hot potato for awhile. But 70% approval for single payer is extraordinarily high for an issue. We invaded Iraq on 67%. I'm even a bit skeptical of that 70% figure, but if voters have any good sense at all, 70% could be believable. If it goes higher, as it very well might in an environment of soaring insurance costs, there could be an overwhelming consensus that can't be ignored.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 30, 2018, 01:17:27 PM
If Obamacare failed, why would the Democrats go even further "left" (see; sensible)? If anything it probably would have just pushed them further right since that has been the Democratic strategy for most of the modern era; if you are accused of being too "left" (even if you are at best moderate), move further right to try to draw in voters rather than try to be the opposition party.
From what I hear, many new Democrats are making that move to the left, as far as healthcare anyway. Although this is campaign stuff which doesn't actually apply to legislation. But as you say, the party leadership has moved to the right in recent years leaving many key constituents unrepresented. I understand the strategy of shadowing Republicans and depending on voters to support the lesser of two evils. I think it's a stupid strategy, however. I can understand the ideological theory, but ideologies never work as perfectly as the theory predicts. I think Democrats could have faired better in recent years sticking by their constituents. They failed to keep me in the fold, anyway, but I'm probably not representative of most liberals. On the other hand, I'm sensing a change among liberals, mostly the younger ones who are starting to break out of the Democratic trench and not buying that their role in politics is to be nothing more than party cheerleaders. We saw this with support for Sanders being progressive and lack of enthusiasm for Hillary being just more of the old school.
At least that's my take, but I'm often wrong about politics. In the last couple of years, I'm seeing that the country is a lot more redneck than I thought. I think I miscalculated on that one.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 30, 2018, 01:17:27 PM
If Obamacare failed, why would the Democrats go even further "left" (see; sensible)? If anything it probably would have just pushed them further right
I meant to address this earlier. Obamacare failed to get the desired reception because 99% of the supporters for healthcare never imagined that Democrats would pass a substitute that was invented by Republicans as a tongue in cheek alternative to healthcare during the Clinton administration. It was a classic bait and switch. Everyone thought we were going to pass universal healthcare with a progressive president and Democratic controlled congress until the last minute when the car we had been test driving was suddenly unavailable, and the one without the power widows or extra options was wheeled up to the door as the salesman was giving us the papers to sign. It was sickening for me to realize that voters had been fooled.
Democrats had taken the move to the right strategy to the point where many liberals could no longer tolerate. And it didn't help that we had been bamboozled in the process.
I never did sign up for the ACA. Let 'em fine me, can't get blood out of a turnip.
Quote from: Shiranu on August 30, 2018, 01:17:27 PM
I want to agree with you, and for the most part I do, but I do have a problem with this.
If the Republicans repealed Obamacare, that would have been it... it's not like they were going to propose a better solution any time soon, and the Democrats would not have been able to reinstate it for awhile yet. Additionally the Supreme Court has now been loaded with conservatives which means they always have a trump card to hamper it any chance they get.
If Obamacare failed, why would the Democrats go even further "left" (see; sensible)? If anything it probably would have just pushed them further right since that has been the Democratic strategy for most of the modern era; if you are accused of being too "left" (even if you are at best moderate), move further right to try to draw in voters rather than try to be the opposition party.
Tom Morello had a great interview with Trevor Noah a night or two ago where he talked about his time working for a Democratic Senator in California for two years as a coordinator or something along those lines. His role was essentially to make sure that the Senator was, at all times, receiving calls and attending events from big-money donors, and those donations and the attention did not come for free. He then told the story about why he quit politics and plans on never going back in; a woman called him wanting to speak to the Senator because Mexicans were moving into her neighbourhood and she wanted to know what the Senator would do about it... he promptly told her to go to hell and hung up.
Rather than being praised, he spent the next two weeks being berated and yelled at for hanging up on her by the Senator and his staff, he quit and the rest is history.
The point of bringing that story up is that, fundamentally, the issues America face are fundamentally rooted more in corruption (legalized bribery in lobbying) than in any ideological difference. Both the left and the right take money from the medical insurance and medical care industries and they have no intention on crossing their funders.
Until campaign finance reform is passed and lobbying is extremely limited or banned all together... I just don't see any real, substantial changes being made across the board, not just in healthcare but in essentially every facet of our governance.
Originally a Republican think-tank plan became Romney-care ... which morphed into Obama-care. It has been Republican all along, just as President Obama was ... and Bill Clinton before him. So why should they actual stop it?
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 30, 2018, 01:39:19 PM
Wasn't the age requirements for Medicare supposed to have decreased bit by bit until everyone was covered? I think I heard that somewhere.
That was one idea that was broached I think too. But no dice. Instead Medicare and SS will go up in start age.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 30, 2018, 03:50:15 PM
I never did sign up for the ACA. Let 'em fine me, can't get blood out of a turnip.
IRS enforcement ... but if you are on Medicare, it won't matter anyway.
The answer is Logan's Run .. no old people ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USADM5Gk9Gs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4Ernwm5PtI
Our money, who art in banks, hallowed be thy cash. Thine interest come, thy profit done in Caymans, as it is in Switzerland. Give us this day our daily shares, and forgive us our debts, as we don't forgive our debtors. And lead us not into taxes, but deliver the goods. For thine is the nation, the power and our glory. Amen.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 30, 2018, 03:50:15 PM
I never did sign up for the ACA. Let 'em fine me, can't get blood out of a turnip.
Same. I am too poor to afford it and too wealthy to qualify for the cheapest tiers.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 30, 2018, 08:18:29 PM
Our money, who art in banks, hallowed be thy cash. Thine interest come, thy profit done in Caymans, as it is in Switzerland. Give us this day our daily shares, and forgive us our debts, as we don't forgive our debtors. And lead us not into taxes, but deliver the goods. For thine is the nation, the power and our glory. Amen.
Your money in the bank? First, it belongs to the government, it is on loan to you (hence the name on the money). Second, deposited money belongs to the banks (who is a regulated extension of the government). So the bank gives you the privilege of borrowing their money, that they have on loan from the ultimate owner, the government. Isn't eminent domain great!
Quote from: Baruch on August 30, 2018, 12:49:45 PM
A real plan would be Medicare for all ...
I am currently very pleased with Medicare. It keeps me out of that month to month hand to mouth existence, but if you do an unemotional comparison of Medicare with other western societies' coverage, it's not as great as we lead ourselves to believe. Discussions of Medicare make is sound like it's free, but coverage for medications, Medicare Part B, and supplemental are as expensive as full insurance was 15 years ago. Right now, those safety nets cost me around $400/month (almost $5000/year).
And that $400/month does not include drug insurance. As it is, I buy (out of pocket) medications from an online Canadian pharmacy that charges 1/4 the price of my local CVS pharmacy on the corner. But that is substantially less than the drug coverage would cost me through Medicare.
Here's the thing about single payer.
Right now, it costs my employer nearly as much as my wages to provide me medical coverage, and I have to pay a premium on top of that anyway.
So even if my taxes go up ten or twenty percent (and they wouldn't go up that much), my employer could take what they had been spending on health insurance and give me nearly a 100% raise that would more than cover it. Or even a 50% raise, bank the rest, and then have the county cut the tax that pays for our agency due to lower operating costs going forward.
Single payer? Bring it.
Quote from: trdsf on August 31, 2018, 10:51:46 AM
Here's the thing about single payer.
Right now, it costs my employer nearly as much as my wages to provide me medical coverage, and I have to pay a premium on top of that anyway.
So even if my taxes go up ten or twenty percent (and they wouldn't go up that much), my employer could take what they had been spending on health insurance and give me nearly a 100% raise that would more than cover it. Or even a 50% raise, bank the rest, and then have the county cut the tax that pays for our agency due to lower operating costs going forward.
Single payer? Bring it.
I've thought about this too. When insurance began to go through the roof, my employer capped our insurance allowance at $400, and employees had to pay the difference. My long ago ex just retired, and she told me her monthly share was up to $800, and it was never great insurance to begin with. Imagine what employers could do with an extra $1200/month on each of their employees. Even if they kept it for themselves, and taxes went up, you would still have extra income, and you wouldn't be bothered by insurance hassles. I heard a figure a few years ago, put out by Republicans opposing healthcare, that taxes would go up $2000/yearly. I have no idea how they arrived at this, but it's still far below the benefits accrued. In truth, I don't know how much taxes would go up. We would need information from the government accounting office before we got out our paper and pencils.
People have strong visceral responses to taxes without thinking it through. Of course the government would have to raise taxes, but people need to do the math before they reject it over a visceral response. The downside is that's a lot of tax revenue sitting in government vaults as it's being dispersed on the country's health, and you know that the greedy would be eying it and scheming some way of getting their hands on it, and I'm certain many politicians would want to divert some of those revenues into the pockets of their biggest donors. Citizens will have to watch what is happening and vote accordingly.
People with insurance from their employers don't think about it much. They are happy to get a benefit and in some cases consider it a freebee, but it's not. When I retired and was allowed to stay in my employers insurance program (that is if I was willing to pay the total premium), it dawned on me pretty quickly that my insurance was going to be my single biggest monthly bill that dwarfed the others, and it hurt.
Quote from: trdsf on August 31, 2018, 10:51:46 AM
Here's the thing about single payer.
Right now, it costs my employer nearly as much as my wages to provide me medical coverage, and I have to pay a premium on top of that anyway.
So even if my taxes go up ten or twenty percent (and they wouldn't go up that much), my employer could take what they had been spending on health insurance and give me nearly a 100% raise that would more than cover it. Or even a 50% raise, bank the rest, and then have the county cut the tax that pays for our agency due to lower operating costs going forward.
Single payer? Bring it.
Crooked accounting. Keeping things the same ... increased prices. Changing thing in any way ... increased prices. Either way, more tax for your government, more profit for the employer ... you get less salary, less benefits. Your figures are imaginary, like all other projections of the future. Bet much at the casino?
Quote from: SGOS on August 31, 2018, 11:47:00 AM
I heard a figure a few years ago, put out by Republicans opposing healthcare, that taxes would go up $2000/yearly. I have no idea how they arrived at this, but it's still far below the benefits accrued.
$2000 a year? That would
save me about $500 a year.
And the closest thing the Republicans have to a health care plan is to hope people die before they're old enough to qualify for Medicare.
Quote from: trdsf on August 31, 2018, 12:49:07 PM
$2000 a year? That would save me about $500 a year.
And the closest thing the Republicans have to a health care plan is to hope people die before they're old enough to qualify for Medicare.
Correct ... D-party under Obama promised single-payer ... bwahah.
I keep regular insurance. It's expensive and I almost never use it. I didn't even visit a Dr for 10 years until June. I expect a single payer system would cost me less and provide as good coverage. The bigger the pool and the less profit-orientation would have to cost less.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 01, 2018, 10:25:29 PM
I keep regular insurance. It's expensive and I almost never use it. I didn't even visit a Dr for 10 years until June. I expect a single payer system would cost me less and provide as good coverage. The bigger the pool and the less profit-orientation would have to cost less.
In theory, with honest actors. But so many people, organizations are crooked ;-(
Quote from: Cavebear on September 01, 2018, 10:25:29 PM
I keep regular insurance. It's expensive and I almost never use it. I didn't even visit a Dr for 10 years until June. I expect a single payer system would cost me less and provide as good coverage. The bigger the pool and the less profit-orientation would have to cost less.
And, medical decisions need to be made by medical professionals trying to protect a patient's health. Not accountants trying to protect a corporate bottom line.
Simply put, privatized health care doesn't work. It's not cost effective, it isn't universal, and it frequently prioritizes private profits over the medical needs of the patient.
Quote from: trdsf on September 02, 2018, 05:34:47 AM
And, medical decisions need to be made by medical professionals trying to protect a patient's health. Not accountants trying to protect a corporate bottom line.
Simply put, privatized health care doesn't work. It's not cost effective, it isn't universal, and it frequently prioritizes private profits over the medical needs of the patient.
It works for the insurance companies, who pay the bills. Those who have the "gold" make the rules. Also both R and D want to enslave medical practitioners ... but for different reasons. The only real question is who gets to run the plantation.
Like I've said before; You wouldn't want a private, for profit organisation with lobbyists running your police or your fire department would you?
Here's story from 5 years ago:
Arizona Firefighters Charge Family Nearly $20,000 After Home Burns Down (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/justin-purcell-fire_n_4242734.html)
Privatized fire/police is nothing but a protection racket.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 04, 2018, 01:19:53 PM
Here's story from 5 years ago:
Arizona Firefighters Charge Family Nearly $20,000 After Home Burns Down (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/08/justin-purcell-fire_n_4242734.html)
Privatized fire/police is nothing but a protection racket.
Collectivized services are nothing but communist. But then I like Putin. On that basis, hospitals that charge $100,000 for a vital operation, should be shot.
Quote from: trdsf on September 02, 2018, 05:34:47 AM
And, medical decisions need to be made by medical professionals trying to protect a patient's health. Not accountants trying to protect a corporate bottom line.
Simply put, privatized health care doesn't work. It's not cost effective, it isn't universal, and it frequently prioritizes private profits over the medical needs of the patient.
Well said! Let Coke vs Pepsi, Ford vs Toyota, New Balance vs Nike fight out the commercial world. But medical care is too important. Its as if there were all roads owned by companies or air subscribed to users by corporations.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 08, 2018, 04:24:22 AM
Well said! Let Coke vs Pepsi, Ford vs Toyota, New Balance vs Nike fight out the commercial world. But medical care is too important. Its as if there were all roads owned by companies or air subscribed to users by corporations.
Shh, you are revealing the long term privatization plans of the Rentier class. Something that would benefit you, if you lived long enough.
The GOP wants to take away take away health care from the working class so they can give more wealth care to the super rich.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 09, 2018, 07:45:00 PM
The GOP wants to take away take away health care from the working class so they can give more wealth care to the super rich.
Republicans aren't a separate species. Same species as you and me. We are all competing with one another, to the death.
Quote from: Baruch on September 09, 2018, 10:37:41 PM
Same species as you and me. We are all competing with one another, to the death.
We're a social species. We're suppose to live together and help each other.
Quote from: Jason78 on September 11, 2018, 02:09:32 PM
We're a social species. We're suppose to live together and help each other.
As in, help others to rob and kill? We do help, but help isn't necessarily good for you. Sorry, socialism is two edged. The Nazis and Stalinists were social too.
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 09, 2018, 07:45:00 PM
The GOP wants to take away take away health care from the working class so they can give more wealth care to the super rich.
And I just heard on the news tonight that the Trump Administration took money from the electrical grid and water supply rebuilding efforts in Puerto Rico after the hurricane damage to support ICE deportation efforts.
Quote from: Jason78 on September 11, 2018, 02:09:32 PM
We're a social species. We're suppose to live together and help each other.
The basic purpose of forming a government is to organize and share defense, distribute resources, and enforce laws. We create a government for "the general welfare" of us all. Not to provide power-hungry people means to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest or satisfy their desire to rule others.
And because of that, I will say that some basic understandings have been perverted. Corporations are not "people". Spending money is not "free speech", political control of local governments does not mean you can gerrymander voting districts to minimize your opposition, and making it difficult for opponents to vote is not "democracy".
Quote from: Cavebear on September 12, 2018, 01:54:53 AM
The basic purpose of forming a government is to organize and share defense, distribute resources, and enforce laws. We create a government for "the general welfare" of us all. Not to provide power-hungry people means to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest or satisfy their desire to rule others.
And because of that, I will say that some basic understandings have been perverted. Corporations are not "people". Spending money is not "free speech", political control of local governments does not mean you can gerrymander voting districts to minimize your opposition, and making it difficult for opponents to vote is not "democracy".
Thanks Benjamin Franklin etc. You can go back to the naive and hypocritical 18th century now.
Otherwise I would give you a like for this, because I agree with most of it. Too bad people keep messing up our utopia of Francis Bacon (New Atlantis).
Well, this is just about what could be expected from Republicans after a huge tax cut for the rich - take the money from the poor:
Quote"The thousands of people who lost Medicaid coverage this month in Arkansas for not following newly implemented work requirements may be a sign of what’s to come in other GOP-led states.
Indiana and New Hampshire are slated to implement their Medicaid work requirements next year, and a slew of other states are awaiting approval from the Trump administration to do so."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAOz0-vSFoY
The only health plan that both parties support ... is working in the cotton fields in the hot Sun.
Quote from: Baruch on September 17, 2018, 07:48:53 PM
The only health plan that both parties support ... is working in the cotton fields in the hot Sun.
With a hat.
But when there is a “free†health care, someone, somewhere will have to pay the bill.
I think Ms. Cortez has it worked out.
Quote from: pr126 on September 18, 2018, 05:59:23 AM
With a hat.
But when there is a “free†health care, someone, somewhere will have to pay the bill.
I think Ms. Cortez has it worked out.
Becoming a Congress critter, is her path to free healthcare. Not being European, she can't try to become a European commissioner ;-)
Not that the health care dystopia can't be made more practical. I am still tryin to square my mother's final medical bills (she died last year). Too many cooks in the kitchen, they all want a cut of the money flow.
Ms. Cortez is welcome to the NHS treatment any time.
Quote from: pr126 on September 18, 2018, 06:03:33 AM
Ms. Cortez is welcome to the NHS treatment any time.
There is quality, quantity and bureaucracy. I would like to reduce the bureaucracy in particular. I realize that the quality and quantity are problematic. I would not enjoy France, though I hear they handle emergency care very well (I guess you don't have to stand in line for 6 months filling out paperwork).
Societies exist to provide basic services somewhat evenly to all members. In the past, that was bread and water. Later, it was fair laws and equal justice. Now, there are some things that a progressing society considers basic rather than "for profit". One of those is basic decent health care. The question should not now be "how can we maximize health care profits for companies and share-holders", but "how can we best provide basic health care to the whole of the population".
The days of max-profit health care systems are going the way of subscription fire-fighters of the past.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 19, 2018, 12:50:49 AM
Societies exist to provide basic services somewhat evenly to all members. In the past, that was bread and water. Later, it was fair laws and equal justice. Now, there are some things that a progressing society considers basic rather than "for profit". One of those is basic decent health care. The question should not now be "how can we maximize health care profits for companies and share-holders", but "how can we best provide basic health care to the whole of the population".
The days of max-profit health care systems are going the way of subscription fire-fighters of the past.
Haha ... are you Swedish?
For profit health care does suck. And we could do better with a socialist system ... if you can enslave the medical staff at low salaries. Nationalize the drug companies, I dare you!
Profit margins are built in now, and our congress-critters will assure that they continue to be with our slow slog toward medicare for all.
It will be completely unfair the the CEO of Brand X to suddenly be worth only $32 million a year instead of $64 million a year.
This middle-man shit has go to go.
Quote from: ferdmonger on September 19, 2018, 06:55:39 PM
Profit margins are built in now, and our congress-critters will assure that they continue to be with our slow slog toward medicare for all.
It will be completely unfair the the CEO of Brand X to suddenly be worth only $32 million a year instead of $64 million a year.
This middle-man shit has go to go.
Middle-class = middle men. Kill the bourgeoisie!
I can purchase my product direct from the manufacturer at slightly above cost. (Overhead.)
I can purchase my product from an intermediary with skimmed profits adding to overhead.
If this the the definition of bourgeoisie, then yes, eliminate that portion of the equation.
Quote from: ferdmonger on September 19, 2018, 07:43:49 PM
I can purchase my product direct from the manufacturer at slightly above cost. (Overhead.)
I can purchase my product from an intermediary with skimmed profits adding to overhead.
If this the the definition of bourgeoisie, then yes, eliminate that portion of the equation.
I generally agree. Let's says that farmers set up stands for selling their product. I can buy corn and beans and potatoes for half the cost of what is at the grocery store. Why should I not. The actual producers of the products gain. The middlemen get cut out. Let them get more productive jobs. I hear the farmers need pickers...
And there are benefits. The farmers selling at stands don't pick their crops unripe and fake the ripeness. They don't refrigerate their tomatoes causing the flavor enzymes to die and make the tomatoes taste like mush.
Granted that might make make it hard to find strawberries in February, but have you tasted those things? I realize there are economies of scale and organization, but when I berries in the grocery store at $12/lb and $3/pint at the farm stand. I realize I am paying a LOT to middlemen who just shuffle the product along from a desk somewhere.
I also realize there are objections. Fire away!
Quote from: Cavebear on September 23, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I generally agree. Let's says that farmers set up stands for selling their product. I can buy corn and beans and potatoes for half the cost of what is at the grocery store. Why should I not. The actual producers of the products gain. The middlemen get cut out. Let them get more productive jobs. I hear the farmers need pickers...
And there are benefits. The farmers selling at stands don't pick their crops unripe and fake the ripeness. They don't refrigerate their tomatoes causing the flavor enzymes to die and make the tomatoes taste like mush.
Granted that might make make it hard to find strawberries in February, but have you tasted those things? I realize there are economies of scale and organization, but when I berries in the grocery store at $12/lb and $3/pint at the farm stand. I realize I am paying a LOT to middlemen who just shuffle the product along from a desk somewhere.
I also realize there are objections. Fire away!
The government objects ... mostly the Health Dept. You can't sell food unless you are incorporated, and the larger the corporation the better, so you can afford the government paperwork ;-) This is why it is illegal for children to set up a lemonade stand (might poison someone). This is why it is illegal for dairymen to sell unpasteurized milk (might poison someone). And of course the more middlemen we have the more Middle-class people we can justify. Bargain seeking consumers have been the bane of the Middle-class, ever since we chose to support Walmart. Also most cooks at restaurants are former prisoners ... who will employ them when they get out of prison ... if people don't prefer restaurants over their own cooking?