Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On a serious note, I don't know why a rich and smart nation like the USA doesn't have a better healthcare system.

DINLT, you know the answer. It comes down to seriously retrograde attitudes like this.... (taken from the America politics thread)

Seaward wrote:
I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.

 Henry wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
On a serious note, I don't know why a rich and smart nation like the USA doesn't have a better healthcare system.

DINLT, you know the answer. It comes down to seriously retrograde attitudes like this.... (taken from the America politics thread)

Seaward wrote:
I'm actually kind of sad he's not going to make it to the general, because I'd really like a good old-fashioned repudiation of socialism and reinforcement of American capitalist values, and we'd for sure get it once he was the nominee.

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of myth about American values these days. Take capitalism as one example. America is supposed to be this land of capitalism,. but the amount of protection that the NFL gets made my jaw drop. Compare that to football (soccer) in Europe and the dog eat dog, last man standing system they have. That's capitalism.

We have convenient capitalism here. We're capitalist when it works for the right people.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 namiel wrote:
I think this is a good thing. A good way to show that a single payer system run by the government wont work. The govt here does not create successful programs. Never have. So we watch this failure in Colorado and people will stop asking for it nation wide.

On the other hand a lot of people in other countries with govt. run healthcare really do like it (despite admitting problems with it) so it could pave the way for other states to adopt if the people there really like it.

The issue I see with this is the governments track record of running programs. Do they ever work? pretty much never

The programs work. It's just one party wants them to fail so they sabotage them.

 skyth wrote:
The programs work. It's just one party wants them to fail so they sabotage them.

Uh... no. If you're referring to Obamacare, the GOP voters don't want it.

Besides, the Democrats did most of the sabotage by passing such a gakky bill.

 skyth wrote:
The programs work. It's just one party wants them to fail so they sabotage them.

obamacare has been repeatedly attacked by the republicans but NEVER altered. Yes they have tried very hard to shut it down but never successful. Why does it still fail when no changes have been made?

Look at the VA, fannie mae/Freddie mac, no child left behind, prohibition, war on drugs, medicare and social security (both going broke unsustainable), etc.

With the state of the VA right now, which has been government run since the beginning, what is promising about a government run healthcare nation wide or even state wide?

Other issues that it raises, Does the government now just assume control of all medical facilities nation/state wide? Do we seize all the private property owned by these hospitals? Do all employees at these hospitals now just become govt employees? Do private practices now not have any autonomy? So you forsake capitalism in just one industry? Does this set precedence for other industries?

As an example, here's how much the premiums are going up by the state:


Ouch.

Im not saying that the way it was before was the most amazing system that always worked so well and never had faults. What I am saying is that this is NOT the answer.

Anyone that decries a system as not achieving perfection and demands only a perfect system will die still demanding that.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Anyone that decries a system as not achieving perfection and demands only a perfect system will die still demanding that.

no one was demanding perfection, just don't make things worse. They are not only not making anything better but its significantly worse then it was before they started

Working and having worked in the NHS for the last 8 years, it is a great institution, poorly managed. There are too many different ways healthcare is run in each area, there is little to no joined up working, budgets are too isolated and criteria are poorly drafted.

A service which could save a trust £100,000 a month by spending £5,000 through working in a different way and integrating with other services is never going to get the go-ahead. It is massively frustrating when you can see ways of providing better care and save money but you just can't get anything off the ground.

The relentles drive to sell off the NHS also doesn't help.

The ACA has been having the opposite of the intended effect, at least for the middle class. I tried to tell people the middle class is always the whipping boy and that money doesn't come from nowhere, but people still wanted it. The ACA does nothing to curb escalating family plans. And many employers are opting to take the penalty rather than provide, leaving low income workers to get a shoddy plan on the exchange. I hear my father talk of health plans with barely any monthly premium in the 80s. At my employer it is now over a grand per month.

 namiel wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 namiel wrote:
I think this is a good thing. A good way to show that a single payer system run by the government wont work. The govt here does not create successful programs. Never have. So we watch this failure in Colorado and people will stop asking for it nation wide.

On the other hand a lot of people in other countries with govt. run healthcare really do like it (despite admitting problems with it) so it could pave the way for other states to adopt if the people there really like it.

The issue I see with this is the governments track record of running programs. Do they ever work? pretty much never

The US military, FAA, CDC, interstate highway system, FDIC, GI Bill, OSHA, FDA, NASA, etc. all tend to indicate otherwise. OTOH, US businesses fail at a rate of roughly 80%. Care to imagine what would have happened if Social Security had been privatized under the Bush administration? Hint: the market tanked, but we still have Social Security.

The nice thing about a democracy is that if the people in charge aren't doing what the majority wants, there is an option.

 jmurph wrote:

 namiel wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 namiel wrote:
I think this is a good thing. A good way to show that a single payer system run by the government wont work. The govt here does not create successful programs. Never have. So we watch this failure in Colorado and people will stop asking for it nation wide.

On the other hand a lot of people in other countries with govt. run healthcare really do like it (despite admitting problems with it) so it could pave the way for other states to adopt if the people there really like it.

The issue I see with this is the governments track record of running programs. Do they ever work? pretty much never

The US military, FAA, CDC, interstate highway system, FDIC, GI Bill, OSHA, FDA, NASA, etc. all tend to indicate otherwise. OTOH, US businesses fail at a rate of roughly 80%. Care to imagine what would have happened if Social Security had been privatized under the Bush administration? Hint: the market tanked, but we still have Social Security.

The nice thing about a democracy is that if the people in charge aren't doing what the majority wants, there is an option.

First of all you listed a lot of agencies only 2 programs.

So lets begin. The us military is not a conventional government organization and frankly getting weaker as more and more politicians are injecting their social agenda into it rather then letting them do what they do. Leave the military alone.

FAA is fine more or less but if you want to bring that up lets discuss the high quality agency known as the TSA that has an obnoxious failure rate. I personally know how bad they are at their jobs from experiencing it through training.

The CDC is funded by the government and run by scientists. Politicians pretty much avoid this unless they need something. Money for useless programs? Lets take from the CDC a needed and worthy agency.

The FDIC? we are insuring bank accounts by printing more money, great plan.

OSHA, important and very very annoying. common sense and liabilities laws about workmans comp does more to prevent workplace accidents then osha does.

FDA. Why is this not one agency with the CDC???

NASA with its excessive lack of funding in recent years the PRIVATE SECTOR has taken over and done so much since nasa has been out of the game. Proof in one way that if the government stays out of some things that the private sector will take over.

Now on to the only 2 programs that you mentioned.

The interstate system. Great idea and has increased interstate trade enormously. Now that the infrastructure is there and relied upon by states the feds just use it as leverage against states to get what they want. IE the drinking age in the state of Wisconsin in the70's. So the program in itself succeeded in what it was meant to do but today serves as a tool to bend states to the will of the feds? How is that success for the people?

The GI Bill. Great program and huge expansion from the Montgomery to the post 9/11 bill. It would be stellar if they paid everyone instead of about 60% like they do. Holding up people from graduation due to unpaid tuition, people still in student debt because the gi bill never paid, students being dropped from school due to non payment, etc. When I was in school a 60% was an F. So an A for effort but an F for actual execution.

Now to social security and the market collapse. 2 events lead to the market collapse as we saw it, mainly. One was the housing bubble that was caused by sub prime lending which was pushed HARD by the feds to encourage home ownership to those who could not afford it. Brilliant idea, lets lend money to people who cant pay it back. Secondly was the collapse of the Derivatives market which was left in place by the wisdom of the great alan greenspan, Robert rubin, and friends. Even when one government agency tried to intervene another cut in to chop its own balls off. Years later greenspan publically apologized in a congressional hearing for his part in the derivatives collapse.

The ACA is still better than what we had before and what we would have without it.

Social Security worked well and would work even better if there wasn't a cap to earnings.

Medicaide is one of the best run and most efficient programs out there.

Welfare works pretty well as well, but could be better if it wasn't constantly under attack.

 skyth wrote:
The ACA is still better than what we had before and what we would have without it.

Social Security worked well and would work even better if there wasn't a cap to earnings.

Medicaide is one of the best run and most efficient programs out there.

Welfare works pretty well as well, but could be better if it wasn't constantly under attack.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

We lost a million jobs, healthcare costs consistently rising, and insurance markets closing one after another.

Medicaid is a dying program theres no money left in 10 years, how is that best run?

Social security same as above

Welfare was meant as a stop gap for those hurting financially but yet people stay on it for YEARS. 10, 20, 30 years of taxpayer money for what?

Please stop listening to NPR

Just as a complete aside on your comment on people remaining on welfare, I'm assuming you've no real qualms about people who are unable to work due to permanent disability.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Just as a complete aside on your comment on people remaining on welfare, I'm assuming you've no real qualms about people who are unable to work due to permanent disability.

I have no issue with that. What I do have an issue with is the lack of retraining programs that exist. Say a construction worker loses the use of his legs in a tragic accident what would prevent him, after all of his rehabilitation, from working a desk job? Remaining on disability by choice refusing to learn a new skill is unacceptable BUT retraining programs should be made available to these people and disability benefits should be maintained until said training is complete and reasonable time has been made to attain a job.

Welfare is not disability. Disability is not welfare.

Disability benefits are a form of welfare. I understand in America the meaning is different though.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
As a filthy socialist swimming in a sea of free healthcare, I can tell you it's pretty great.

The only time you're going to deal with any kind of wait is if you have to see a specialist for something minor. If it's serious you get pushed to the front of the line.

When we were dealing with my dad's tumor we had no wait times. Appointments would be booked for the same or next day in most cases.

We told you about that. Keep rubbing your superior healthcare in our faces and we'll appropriate your strategic maple and Molson reserves. We'll drink those Molsons right in front of you. Don't think we won't do it.

Let me tell you something Frazz. When we Canadians do our nightly apologies before we lay to sleep, the first thing we apologise for is Molson Canadian. Before Celine Dion, before Nickelback, even before Beiber, we apologise for Molson Canadian beer. It's sex in a canoe.

I went back to school because my joints were beginning to crap out on me in my 20s. I knew I couldn't spend the rest of my life doing physical work. Knowing then what I know now I should have just applied for disability rather than obtained qualifications for a more office oriented career.

 Monkey Tamer wrote:
I went back to school because my joints were beginning to crap out on me in my 20s. I knew I couldn't spend the rest of my life doing physical work. Knowing then what I know now I should have just applied for disability rather than obtained qualifications for a more office oriented career.