[castor]

Without teachers, we don't get doctors.

True, when the scope is the whole society. But individuals can avoid that problem, by letting others see the trouble of arranging the doctors (still, they need money to gain access to them).

[iamzack]

You aren't listening.  Doctors do get paid enough to pay off tuition.

Unless they work primarily for the people who can't pay.

[Scotty]

Doctors don't frequently work for people who can't pay, especially since hospitals employ the vast majority of them.  Even if they treat people who can't pay, they still get paid.

[Spicious]

The current set of health tyrants are qualified to maximize profit. In a competitive market with no externalities, this is the most efficient scheme, and not just doing anything to get elected.

This would only apply if efficiency is not measured by cost/service (not to mention the laughable assumptions about the free market being perfect). Efficiency seems to be measured by cost/payers which incredibly rewards rejecting people, especially those who have already paid.

I do believe that some minimum level of health care should be maintained for people who can't afford it, but also that the right balance is somewhere around where we are now.

None?

A person can get along without teachers and farmers. But a seriously sick person can not get along without doctors.
So from the point of view of an individua, the value of medical services is higher than the value of farming, education.

Your doctor drug company has cured hunger?

[Liberator]

Farmers already make quite a bit thanks to federal payment.

I LOL'D.

A person can get along without farmers.

Try it.

City folk.  You think everything just appears on the trucks as they back into the grocery store and that past the city limits is just a blur as you drive/fly over.

And on the federal payment thing, most family farms are in debt up to they're eyeballs.  If food cost what it should/would without that paydown from the government, a gallon of milk would cost $10, a head of broccoli $12, and a package of hamburger $25.

[SpardaSon21]

I thought most agricultural production in the United States was handled by large agri-businesses instead of family-owned farms.

[Bob-san]

I thought most agricultural production in the United States was handled by large agri-businesses instead of family-owned farms.

Most of it is family-owned businesses with gigantic tracts of land and a lot of professional work and equipment. Most of those in debt are smaller farmers.

[SpardaSon21]

Okay.  So my argument was off about that, but the basic fact remains that most of the food grown in the United States does not require any federal subsidies, which is what Liberator was saying.

[Mars]

A Bachelor's degree is pretty expensive. Teachers don't get paid much, so in my state, if you agree to teach in North Carolina for a minimum period of time, the state takes care of tuition.

Why aren't we doing that for doctors, if they're so, so, so valuable?

Becoming a doctor is a fair bit more expensive than a bachelor's degree.

[Kosh]

You're fine the way you are. Don't fix what's not broken.

I'm sure that is cold comfort to the 40+ million that are being denied access. I'm sure it will also make those that lose everything they have, both insured and uninsured, to outrageously expensive healthcare feel better too. Before the financial crisis, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US was healthcare. Fine the way we are? Doesn't look that way to me.

Argentina has free health care paid by the national, provincial and municipal government, health care and covenants with private institutions provided by the unions, and private health care. The result? Mediocre public health care paid by the middle class through taxes, unions getting incredibly rich and bureaucratic, and private health (generally the only that provides top of the line, state of the art health care) facing an unfair disadvantage in the market and thus becoming more expensive.

If I had the choice between mediocre and nothing, I would choose mediocre. How is private health facing an unfair disadvantage? That they have to be more honest about their pricing? Anyone would go for it if they had the chance, but not all of us are so fortunate. What if you lose your job? In the US, typically that means you lose your coverage completely, and become vulnerable. If you have any sort of chronic condition, good luck getting private insurance at all, much less with a reasonable rate. Is that fair to the people?

In the last 40 years the cost of healthcare has risen far, far more than inflation. That alone is indicative something is wrong. We spend far more as a percentage of GDP than any other country in the world, at yet according to the WHO we aren't even close to number one in quality of care. Based on this alone, it is blatant evidence that the current system is working less and less well, and becoming increasingly out of reach to middle class america. The right wing always *****es about the middle class getting squeezed hard (which it has been), while at the same time defend the very systems that are creating that squeeze in the first place.

[Nuclear1]

Another debate about health care?

I still can't believe we have people defending the rich and screwing the sick.

[Liberator]

Nobody's defending anything.  The system does need some adjustment.  Adjustment.  Not throwing the whole thing out and letting 520 lawyers and politicians stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.

[Nuclear1]

By saying healthcare just needs an "adjustment" and not a total overhaul is by default defending the rich.

CEOs of health insurance companies are the ones benefiting from the current system, people who make >$500K a year. People who will be taxed if reform passes.

[Inquisitor]

Aren't there ag exemptions in the Senate bill? Its been a few months since I read the bill. I read all of hte House bill and a big chunk of the senate bill. Did you?

The House bill would change my life not one whit. The Senate bill was less appealing, if I recall, their version of the "cadillac tax" looked like it might affect me in 2014, but I am not sure I am selfish enough to object.

[NGTM-1R]

Nobody's defending anything.  The system does need some adjustment.  Adjustment.  Not throwing the whole thing out and letting 520 lawyers and politicians stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.

Defend those claims. In what ways is it hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative"?

Because let's be honest here, this is exactly the same argument being made against gay marriage, and it's being made on the same grounds. Someone is trying to extend priviledge into a right, so they are being accused of trying to destroy priviledge. In essence, if we give everyone healthcare, then some people aren't special anymore. And they don't like not being special.

There's even truth to the argument that by making a priviledge into a right you destroy it. But it's a just destruction. I know this may not sway you; some of the right's mouthpieces have lately even claimed that they are against social justice or justice in general, but if you wish to continue arguing against the concept of justice, I don't think it's possible for us to find common ground. You are as alien as any extraterrestrial, under those terms.

[castor]

A person can get along without farmers.

Try it.

City folk.  You think everything just appears on the trucks as they back into the grocery store and that past the city limits is just a blur as you drive/fly over.

You misunderstood what I tried to say. The point was that you can get along even if YOU are deprived from their services. If it comes to it, you can steal, deceive, beg etc. to get foodstuffs. But stealing advanced medical treatments is almost impossible; you may end up being critically dependent on services you can't get without proper money.

[iamzack]

...stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.

I thought the Daily Show was exaggerating about this. XD

[Bob-san]

...stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.

I thought the Daily Show was exaggerating about this. XD

Actually they're fairly spot-on, if a bit sarcastic. The system DOES need an adjustment, but handing it all over to bureaucratic control will NOT serve 309,000,000 people effectively in 50 states and several Caribbean and Pacific territories. In some European Union countries, it does work. However, the USA is roughly 4x the size of Germany (3.814x), 5x the size of France (4.828x), 5x the size of the UK (4.984x), 5x the size of Italy (5.15x), &c. As was recently proven in the financial crisis, even delegating the management down to a state-by-state level would be horrendous. Would you really want a major even such as California's recent bankruptcy to stop all health coverage for its 37,000,000 residents? Would you really want broken state politics (such as those seen DAILY in New York) to constantly change the rules or have a health care spending bill be 20% healthcare and 80% embezzlement?

[SpardaSon21]

California's recent bankruptcy

We aren't quite bankrupt yet, we are still merely fiscally insolvent.   The biggest problem facing California's budget is the fact it is highly dependent on the incomes of the wealthy.  Since a lot of the rich have taken major income hits due to the recession, California isn't making enough money to meet the Legislature's uncontrolled spending habits, and like people with addictions, they can't seem to realize the only way to stay solvent is to stop spending so much money.

[Ghostavo]

...stuff a hackneyed, unworkable, barely-worthy-of-the-word "alternative" down our throats.

I thought the Daily Show was exaggerating about this. XD

Actually they're fairly spot-on, if a bit sarcastic. The system DOES need an adjustment, but handing it all over to bureaucratic control will NOT serve 309,000,000 people effectively in 50 states and several Caribbean and Pacific territories. In some European Union countries, it does work. However, the USA is roughly 4x the size of Germany (3.814x), 5x the size of France (4.828x), 5x the size of the UK (4.984x), 5x the size of Italy (5.15x), &c. As was recently proven in the financial crisis, even delegating the management down to a state-by-state level would be horrendous. Would you really want a major even such as California's recent bankruptcy to stop all health coverage for its 37,000,000 residents? Would you really want broken state politics (such as those seen DAILY in New York) to constantly change the rules or have a health care spending bill be 20% healthcare and 80% embezzlement?

One thing I've never understood is why do people point out the size of the population as something that stops healthcare from working. Yes, it's roughly 4x the size of Germany, 5x the size of France, 5x the size of the UK and 5x the size of Italy. But it also has 4x the GDP of germany (3.863x), 5x the GDP of France (4.935x), 5x the GDP of the UK (5.287x) and 6x the GDP of Italy (6.121x).