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.

The question of a universal healthcare system is not one of affordability, but of political will.

America spends more money on health than any other nation on earth, and it's military budget is living proof that the USA can afford a universal healthcare system.

But does the political will exist to sell this idea to the American public? No, IMO, which is why I think Saunders is doomed to fail.

Here's another point for Americans to consider. The British health system (NHS) employs almost 1.5 Million people! Plus thousands more people who are directly or indirectly involved in the supply chain. It's the biggest employer in Europe, and the 3rd largest in the world. Yip, it's bigger than the US military.

Only the Chinese army and the Indian rail service employ more people than the NHS.

And my point? Well, America is a bigger nation than the UK, and proportionally, an American NHS would need around 4-5 million people. maybe more. That's one hell of a layer of government employees.

Given that everybody in America hates big government, and always seem to rail against it, I could see an American NHS being the impossible hard sell.

Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.

Thank goodness.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The question of a universal healthcare system is not one of affordability, but of political will.

In this case, political will needs to be of bi-partisan nature and not something like the how Obamacare went down. Hence, the supporters need to give up something big to the opposition to get them at the table.

America spends more money on health than any other nation on earth, and it's military budget is living proof that the USA can afford a universal healthcare system.

That's actually a meaningless comparison as it's missing all sorts of context. Unless, you're opining that the military budget is too big and *could* be diverted to other programs.

But does the political will exist to sell this idea to the American public? No, IMO, which is why I think Saunders is doomed to fail.

Maybe... we'll see in November, eh?

Here's another point for Americans to consider. The British health system (NHS) employs almost 1.5 Million people! Plus thousands more people who are directly or indirectly involved in the supply chain. It's the biggest employer in Europe, and the 3rd largest in the world. Yip, it's bigger than the US military.

Interesting. US Federal Government employs over 13 million people. UK has what... 64 million? The Feds basically employs the equivalence of ~20% of the entire UK population.

Only the Chinese army and the Indian rail service employ more people than the NHS.

Another fun fact, Walmart employs 1.4 million people in the states... so Walmart is just a big as UK NHS!

And my point? Well, America is a bigger nation than the UK, and proportionally, an American NHS would need around 4-5 million people. maybe more. That's one hell of a layer of government employees.

Indeed. Or, just go Canada/AU model and nationalize the insurance industry (single-payor)... leaving the providers private.

Given that everybody in America hates big government, and always seem to rail against it, I could see an American NHS being the impossible hard sell.

eh... just look at Medicare or the VA. There's your "big government" in the industry.

It would be great if one of them started to promote something similar to the Swiss healthcare system as a replacement. That I think would work well for us. Of course, corporations wouldn't like it so it ain't happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

It works. Therefore in our unique American way, we must try everything else first.

Here's another option for you, Whembley: forget health insurance and take the British option of having the taxman take extra money from your income to pay for healthcare.

I'm fairly confident that the prospect of entrusting the IRS with more powers would be a popular move in your household

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

By Old Town, do you mean Alexandria? If so, there is a huge difference between that city and where I live in Loudoun County. The 8th District (which covers Alexandria) has been Democrat for years, while Loudoun was firmly Republican for last fifty years until Obama won in 2008 (the only exception was 1964, when LBJ won). Even now, the county is run primarily by Republicans.

I used to live in Loudon and I know exactly what you're talking about

 CptJake wrote:
Yeah, adding another 4-5 million Federal employees to staff another layer of bureaucracy is a hard sell.

Thank goodness.

The flip side is a job creation boom, and the economy growing for a few years, but I doubt if you want to hear that!

Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.

 Consul Scipio wrote:
It would be great if one of them started to promote something similar to the Swiss healthcare system as a replacement. That I think would work well for us. Of course, corporations wouldn't like it so it ain't happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

It works. Therefore in our unique American way, we must try everything else first.

IMO, that's the most important thing - finding a system that suits the USA. If you copy another nation, you've had it.

In Britain, our health service was born out of the destruction of WW2. The people rebuilding Britain wanted the sacrifice of the war years to mean something, so the government that got elected, was the Labour Party, who were socialist. They pledged to introduce universal health system, and they had no political opposition, because they won the election by a landslide.

Obviously, the USA has its own unique historical and cultural values.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.

I agree with most of this, but the advantage of being a huge employer is purchasing power.

Our health service, because of its size, can lay down the law to pharmaceutical companies and can purchase drugs and medicines for cheap. Imagine what an American NHS could do. Yes, it would be a behemoth, but it could do a ton of good by helping poor Americans with cheap, life saving drugs.

That's the issues you have to balance, IMO.

Why let the federal government run healthcare when there is so much money to be made bilking the citizenry by insurance middlemen?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
They respond to both. There are a lot of racist people in this country, and I'm not even talking about the casual, every day racism on display just about everywhere. I live in northern Virginia, about 35 miles northwest of Washington, DC, and the amount of good old fashion, flat out racism I encounter every day (especially at work) is truly staggering. The most annoying part of it all (besides how disgusting it is), is the assumption that because I'm white I must agree with all of the repulsive things they say. It's actually gotten bad enough that I have stopped hanging out with the people I work with in morning before and after my shift because I can't stand the constant barrage of vile racism. It's especially odd because this area has been trending blue over the last few election cycles (the state went to Obama in 2008 and 2012).

A similar thing happens to me. I own a small-business so people come in all the time and start talking about their R view points and just assume since I am a middle-age, white guy who runs a business I must be a rabid Republican too. They are very, very wrong.

Typically, I just listen and say something along the lines of. "Interesting, thanks for sharing. Anything else I can do for you?" It would be a waste of my time to try to confront them, and it would probably hurt my business in my deeply conservative town.

 Consul Scipio wrote:
It would be great if one of them started to promote something similar to the Swiss healthcare system as a replacement. That I think would work well for us. Of course, corporations wouldn't like it so it ain't happening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

It works. Therefore in our unique American way, we must try everything else first.

Switzerland and the USA are vastly different countries, the system also works because of Switzerland's citizen's immense wealth compared to other countries. As others already stated, the USA need to come up with an own system as it's a very unique country with a vast social gap.

 Henry wrote:

Sword Of Caliban wrote:
Don't usually take much interest in American politics but I really hope you guys vote in trump at least he doesn't mince his words. Uk could do with someone like him.

I'll disagree. The UK doesn't need any more politicians who are quasi-fascist racists. We've got half of the Tory party filling that role already.

Yeah... y'all wouldn't want this to become reality:







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Switzerland and the USA are vastly different countries, the system also works because of Switzerland's citizen's immense wealth compared to other countries. As others already stated, the USA need to come up with an own system as it's a very unique country with a vast social gap.

A more "pure" Bismark/German model, I think would work quite well in the US. Insurance "companies" as non-profit entities, I think, would go a long way to cutting the ridiculous costs associated currently with out healthcare.

Yes, I know that there is a certain level of strain in the German system today, but I think that having a "guild-based" health insurance, rather than what we have with company based systems would help the consumers.

 CptJake wrote:
Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.

In this case job creation would be just an additional bonus. American healthcare system is a disaster, Obamacare might have been a marginal improvement, but it didn't go nearly far enough. You guys the have most ineffective healthcare system in the world if we compare the money spent versus the health statistics. This is a fact. USA easily has the resources to fix this, the only thing stopping it is the lack of political will.

I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.

Meaning it all pretty much evens out then.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.

Doesn't the UK still have a private sector of health insurance providers??Albeit a much smaller one, that serves those who are wealthy enough to afford it. I guess what I'm saying is that even under a single payer system, I don't think an entire industry would completely collapse, it would merely get a whole lot smaller. Plus, in the US we still have a fairly significant supplemental insurance industry to think about.

Yes, you're correct. I hadn't thought about supplemental insurance. Still, there'd be a whole lot of pink slips going around, and a whole lot of insurance companies tanking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm a supporter of single payer, but It's worth noting that a big gain in government jobs to support a single payer system would be accompanied by big job losses in an industry that would no longer exist.

Meaning it all pretty much evens out then.

I'm not sure what the net job loss/gain ratio would be. I'm not so confident that it would even out. It would mean more government jobs in the DC Metro Area, for sure.

 CptJake wrote:
Job creation needs to be driven by the private sector, not the Federal gov't. The feds can set conditions, they should not be the major employer when trying to raise employment numbers.

Why not both? If the private sector isn't providing enough jobs, or enough decent jobs, why shouldn't the government provide more?

From my experience, the private sector is far less attractive.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?

It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.

However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".

The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).

No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" and the cultural level yet.

Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplified less progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?

I'd definitely consider that sort of compromise. Our tax system is horribly complicated.

I hate it when people complain about the tax system being horribly complicated...I do taxes and for 98% of people, taxes are pretty simple. There are outliers (often the higher incomes that are playing games) but for the most part taxes are seen as complicated are because certain very loud people who don't like taxes keep on repeating that they are...and you know the old phrase...tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people start to believe it's the truth.

The worst part of the tax code: I should be getting a tax break for having no kids. I am not taxing the system near as much as the breeders littering the landscape with their spawn, yet they are the ones getting a per child tax break? Makes no sense at all.

It does if you consider that human life has a value of its own. This represents the government rewarding you for being a good samaritan and taking care of another human being.

I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.

 skyth wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Question for you Whembley: would Americans appreciate the government taking more tax money from them to fund a universal healthcare system?

It's kinda toxic now as evidenced by the opposition to Obamacare and it's the figurative albatross on current Democrat party.

However, the cost is still going higher and higher that at some point, a majority would want the government to "do something".

The only way this happens is if the champions of single-payor gives up other concessions to mollify the opposition. Such as a major tax overhaul (scrap current system).

No one has asked, "what would it take for you to support a single-payor system?" and the cultural level yet.

Maybe ask Bernie Sanders? Would he accept a flat-tax, or simplified less progressive tax structure to gain acquiescence from the opposition to implement Universal Healthcare?

I'd definitely consider that sort of compromise. Our tax system is horribly complicated.

I hate it when people complain about the tax system being horribly complicated...I do taxes and for 98% of people, taxes are pretty simple. There are outliers (often the higher incomes that are playing games) but for the most part taxes are seen as complicated are because certain very loud people who don't like taxes keep on repeating that they are...and you know the old phrase...tell a lie often enough and loud enough and people start to believe it's the truth.

They're simple for individuals... sure.

But for individuals who owns business and the corporate tax codes should give everyone the heebee jeebees.

Question: what would *you* offer as a concession to the opposition for a Canadian or UK style healthcare system?

 jasper76 wrote:
I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.

That just ends up punishing the children for being born to the wrong parents...

 jasper76 wrote:
I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.

Parents *do* pay more in taxes anyway based on consumer spending.

I don't think that having a parent pay their fair share for their children is a punishment.

On the flip side of your assertion, childless people are currently being punished for not having children, which makes about zero amount of sense to me.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The question of a universal healthcare system is not one of affordability, but of political will.

America spends more money on health than any other nation on earth, and it's military budget is living proof that the USA can afford a universal healthcare system.

But does the political will exist to sell this idea to the American public? No, IMO, which is why I think Saunders is doomed to fail.

Here's another point for Americans to consider. The British health system (NHS) employs almost 1.5 Million people! Plus thousands more people who are directly or indirectly involved in the supply chain. It's the biggest employer in Europe, and the 3rd largest in the world. Yip, it's bigger than the US military.

Only the Chinese army and the Indian rail service employ more people than the NHS.

And my point? Well, America is a bigger nation than the UK, and proportionally, an American NHS would need around 4-5 million people. maybe more. That's one hell of a layer of government employees.

Given that everybody in America hates big government, and always seem to rail against it, I could see an American NHS being the impossible hard sell.

National Health Care doesn't need a totalised national system. For example, in the UK, general practitioners are self-employed. In Japan, nearly all clinics and hospitals are privately run, and operate under contract to the government health service.

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I do think human life has value. It still makes no sense that someone who has children get a tax break for burdening society. Really, people should be paying more in taxes with every child they have.

Parents *do* pay more in taxes anyway based on consumer spending.

If a state decides to institute a consumption tax, that's their business. If you chose a lifestyle that demands alot of consumption, that's your business.

I am all for the abolishment of taxes on food, and that would benefit everyone across the board, but would help large families the most. For what it's worth. I think taxing food is a barbaric practice.

 jasper76 wrote:
I don't think that having a parent pay their fair share for their children is a punishment.

On the flip side of your assertion, childless people are currently being punished for not having children, which makes about zero amount of sense to me.

You aren't being punished, you just aren't being rewarded either.