For me, the concept of “the individual” is not the market based meaning of “individual choice” as if one is not connected and is independent of everything outside of oneself. That is a false view in that one is not even an independent entity since even the air one breathes or the food one eats (and no longer forages for oneself in the modern world) is a dependent interconnected being. The recent prevailing doctrine of individual choice is a shibboleth, a falsehood since markets give the illusion of choice and cheapens everything by putting an exchange value on everything.
I am not willing to sacrifice freedom at the altar of collectivism for a few paltry dollars. You have apparently made a different choice.
So I think you are coming to the issue as a “data processor” which may just be shielding you from seeing it as a humanitarian issue rather than as only a numbers issue.
Nope. Ultimately, the scheme that the US settles upon must be paid for, unless you can convince the human being that provide those services to work for free. In that you will not be able to do, and that facilities to provide those services do cost money, it is not possible to eschew fiscal reality in pursuit of a utopian ideal.
Put another way: Ignore the data, and just assume that the money will be there, is the road to failure.
Single-payer is doable. No longer will anyone be tied to a job they like because they want to lose their health care. No longer will one have to choose between going to the doctor to get better or not going because of high co-pays and deductibles. No longer will one go bankrupt due to health care costs which pretty much limits choices in stark ways.
- Nobody said it wasn’t “doable”; the question is it DESIRABLE.
- All those benefits you list are either (a) achievable under other schemes, or (b) not achievable, period. There will always be a cost/benefit analysis done, just as there is in ANY nation with a universal scheme. Doesn’t matter where you are — the UK, France, wherever — they will, at some point, tell you NO. Because of cost.
They have intentionally promoted false ideas and spread them to the public so that people are unaware about the truth (such as the idea that Canadians hate their health care, or in environmental discussions that climate change is debatable and the jury is out on the subject). These types of deceptions exist because profiteers know no moral impediment to maximizing next quarters profits over all else.
The fact that there are bad actors that claim bad things doesn’t have anything to do with the dollars and cents.
The real impediment to a national health care plan is the special interests that do not want their money river to dry up, the lobbyists who have eroded and tainted our democracy.
The problem with that is that it’s rather difficult to find, in our system, somebody who is making a load of money off it. The insurers are only the 55th most profitable businesses in the US, making a profit margin similar to that of grocery stores. The hospitals barely eke out a profit. Doctors and nurses make a lot of money in the US compared to other countries, but if you try to convince them to half their wage, you;ll lose talent and the quality of the system. The only outfits that are making *tons* are the pharmas and med equipment manufacturers, and addressing those doesn’t come close to dropping the cost of our system to international levels.
It’;s nice to say “we’ll just take the profit out of it” until you actually have to go FIND that profit. You then realize that the problem is SYSTEMIC, and the problem doesnt just go away because you change the insurance scheme.
Single-payer is the least expensive way to put everybody in, nobody out.
I refuse to participate. Are you going to make me? Gun to my head? Steal my money?
Citizens will pay more taxes, but they will save more money than paid yearly without health insurance costs.
I advise you to never run the numbers. You’;ll realize how pie in the sky that actually is.