This Will Not Work

[ml5363]

Hi all,

I just don't understand when people say that things will never work that seem to work pretty well in other places. Why is that?

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia and France are all nations that offer 'free' higher learning, (this means college or university level education). These are all reasonably well off countries as far as the standard of living of their people.

There are literally dozens of nations that offer some kind of 'free' overall medical care.

Are we really just not as smart as them? Can we really not figure out how to do good things for our citizenry as they have done? Why is it that we can build the strongest and most expensive military to fight wars and kill people, but we can't figure out how to help people better?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

I think population. Has a lot to do with it

 

[mark46]

Looks like a good platform. Will no doubt need to be balanced with spending cuts elsewhere. Maybe if the US could pull its troops out of expensive overseas conflicts (Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen), that would help?

Yes, we are already pulling out of Syria and probably Afghanistan. The cost of these few thousand are now relatively small. Historically, we already spent about 3 trillion dollars. With regard to Yemen, I expect that the Saudis are paying for our advisors. these withdrawals will not even punt dent in the debt increases caused by the individual tax cuts of last year.

 

[Tigger45]

If medical costs in the U.S. were reigned in universal health care would be feasible.

 

[ml5363]

Yes, but it's not quite so simple. More people would be covered, and existing people would be covered for more things.

Ithink yes more would have Insurance, quality would be lower. And longer wait times. say for example, you have a practice that sees 20 patients.. with everyone having insurance , now your patient load may jump up 30..40,, etc.. heck even 5 extra patients would cause less time with orginial patients.

Also if it is like Medicaid, some Drs opt out of that insurance because it doesn't pay enough...this would prob be more of an issue if all is covered by "government"

 

[hedrick]

To me it's at least as important that if health care doesn't have to be paid by employers, it decreases the cost of having people.

If medical costs in the U.S. were reigned in universal health care would be feasible.

Doing that requires controlling drug costs. Any attempt to do that is going to face essentially infinite resources in lobbying, PR and political dirty tricks.

 

[mark46]

There is no question that these services can be provided by the government. In the US, the people aren't willing to have the much higher tax rates required to support the additional services. An increase in the top individual rates would be insufficient.

As an aside, I'd be fine with providing these services, and with the tax rates needed to pay for them.
I would add drug treatment, day care and nursing care to the list of services that should be provided by the government, plus greatly extending job training (this could paid for by businesses).

Hi all,

I just don't understand when people say that things will never work that seem to work pretty well in other places. Why is that?

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Slovenia and France are all nations that offer 'free' higher learning, (this means college or university level education). These are all reasonably well off countries as far as the standard of living of their people.

There are literally dozens of nations that offer some kind of 'free' overall medical care.

Are we really just not as smart as them? Can we really not figure out how to do good things for our citizenry as they have done? Why is it that we can build the strongest and most expensive military to fight wars and kill people, but we can't figure out how to help people better?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Paidiske]

I wasn't talking about government-provided insurance, though; I was talking about government-provided healthcare. As in, the government runs the hospitals, pays the doctors, subsidises the medications etc. directly.

And if you have to train more doctors to adequately care for your population... doing so might be a good thing?

 

[mark46]

Why?
Ringo

because current rates are competitive with rates in other countries

 

[ml5363]

I wasn't talking about government-provided insurance, though; I was talking about government-provided healthcare. As in, the government runs the hospitals, pays the doctors, subsidises the medications etc. directly.

And if you have to train more doctors to adequately care for your population... doing so might be a good thing?

The VA gere in states have a bad rap of negativity, not sure this could be done with government and not have the same results

 

[Paidiske]

What's the biggest obstacle, in your view?

Because from where I am, I think, well, we can do it (sure, it's not perfect, but it's there), so why can't you?

 

[mark46]

The VA gere in states have a bad rap of negativity, not sure this could be done with government and not have the same results

Folks like to point to the VA.

Let's use Medicare as the example. Democrats are suggesting a phased in "Medicare for All"

 

[hedrick]

What's the biggest obstacle, in your view?

Because from where I am, I think, well, we can do it (sure, it's not perfect, but it's there), so why can't you?

I think our politics is more irrational.

 

[Ringo84]

because current rates are competitive with rates in other countries

US Corporate Tax Rates Now Among the Lowest in the World: Report


But I will say that the support (or at least not outright opposition) to M4A here on CF is a pleasant surprise. I think that people have been mistreated by corporate health insurance for so long that the dam is beginning to break, but time will tell.
Ringo

 

[Paidiske]

I think our politics is more irrational.

Well... hmm. I'm afraid I have no answers for that!

 

[JacobKStarkey]

Does anyone here really think that when the GOP does a tax cut that gives breaks of trillions to the rich that anyone cares what the GOP says or does? Really??

 

[Tigger45]

To me it's at least as important that if health care doesn't have to be paid by employers, it decreases the cost of having people.

Doing that requires controlling drug costs. Any attempt to do that is going to face essentially infinite resources in lobbying, PR and political dirty tricks.

It is a multidimensional challenge which would include redefining lobbying contributions and term limits to help get our representatives to actually represent ‘we the people’.

 

[Pommer]

.


The Republicans borrowing to give a trillion dollar tax gift to the rich wasn't any better policy.

You spelt “grift” incorrectly.

 

[mark46]

The numerical gymnastics are indeed impressive.

US companies were greatly hurt by their competitive position before the tax cuts. There are many reasons in addition to rates, which are relatively easy for governments to affect. US companies pay for many types of insurance for workers. US companies have much less governmental R&D support than elsewhere, especially in Asia. Government services also help companies; for example government provided day care.

In any case, I do NOT favor increases in corporate tax rates, although the closing of some loopholes Would be a good idea.

US Corporate Tax Rates Now Among the Lowest in the World: Report


But I will say that the support (or at least not outright opposition) to M4A here on CF is a pleasant surprise. I think that people have been mistreated by corporate health insurance for so long that the dam is beginning to break, but time will tell.
Ringo

 

[Hank77]

The first two particularly the second should not be. There is no such thing as free, and moreover people are more likely to care if they have to pay for it. In other words, not all people are like this, but like college people that pay for it or at least have to maintain a certain GPA for a scholarship they will pull their own weight and want to do well.

Right now there are programs for medical personnel and teachers to get at least part of their education cost forgiven if they work in particular parts of the country.
An example might be that a structural engineering student might be required to volunteer summer breaks working in the field on an infrastructure project and after graduation work with the Army Corp of Engineers for two to five years.
And yes they must maintain a responsible GPA, imo, at the very least 2.0.

 

[Hank77]

As I understand it, if you set up a government run health system it would actually be much cheaper than what you have now, where medical providers try to profit from insurance companies...

And insurance companies make billions in profits every year. 20 million going to one CEO of just one health insurance company, several years ago, pretty much says it all.