They aren't solving our problem, they never had to, they never had our problem.


Is our problem insurmountable?  Is it worth tackling?

This actually wraps back into the original post.   The notion that our problems are not OUR problems, that they aren't surmountable for rationalization X, isn't the argument of defeatists, but that of Idon'tgiveafuxs.

The Idon'tgiveafuxs can't see the benefit to themselves of not having neighbors living in poverty- they don't actually see those people as neighbors, as members of their community.   The Idon'tgiveafuxs are really, really bad at math, believing problem Y will never visit their door.   The Idon'tgiveafuxs don't really believe in community, see community as a consumable of convenience, or as a threat.   The Idon'tgiveafuxs are akin to astronauts that attribute their altitude entirely to themselves.

They throw their elbows when they walk as though there weren't 350 million of us sharing the same space.   They dump crap in the air and river without care for the impact downstream.   They see the light from the fire over the hill, think "glad it's not my house", go back inside to watch the game.

"Why should my life be different because of problems over there?"   Insulated by geography, they consume the products of urban America while only valuing urban America as a market.   They have contempt for mutual respect.   Your marriage devalues my marriage.   Your safety at the cost of my convenience.  Me.   Me.   Me.   "I just want to be left alone."   They didn't get here alone.   They were never alone.   But, content with what they have, they think they can pull up the ladder on reality, stop time, and act as if what happens in their greater community has nothing to do with them.

"Is our problem insurmountable?  Is it worth tackling?"

 It is.  But trying to convince others something needs done by comparing our problem to locations with almost no similarities in the actual structure of their economy, healthcare and patient loads is a futile exercise.  It's the same as saying we should ban all red cars if one is used in a crime, nobody takes it seriously, so nobody who is involved in changing things listens to you.


"What we have now is not working for tens of millions.  Far too many actually die due to lack of care.  Far too many go bankrupt paying their medical bills."

 Agreed.  However using the US legal system, Constitution and Bill of Rights instead of other countries, if we make free medical care a "right" we limit our ability to refuse care, and we remove a portion of funding.  So we need to reduce quality of care, restructure the economy, change what "rights" are defined as, or massively increase funding across a huge platform.

 So using the US legal system and Constitution we all get an equal voice, within reason, so one challenge would be convincing 30 year olds in good health to approve raising taxes, even on "just the rich" which almost every economic model shows doesn't work anyway.

 There's a lot of options, I just don't think saying "Sweden solved it" will help us at all.  We can't use many of Sweden's methods here unless we alter our Bill of Rights, and make some Amendments to our Constitution, and most likely remove capitalism from the legal system.

Eegore wrote on 10/28/19 at 11:32:30:


If you're talking about capitalism in the political system - I totally agree.  Citizens United should be struck down tomorrow and all dark money removed from our political system.  That would be a great start along with Tort reform.

T And T Garage wrote on 10/28/19 at 12:08:39:

I know dozens of people that pay upwards of $5000 a year for their insurance, and that's through their employer.  (The average in the US is near $9,000/year)   Imagine if that money were to go towards Medicare for all.

Let's see.
A person pays 5-9,000 a year In a Premium for him/her.
Suddenly, their is Medicare for all.
So the 5-9,000 paying person,
(who now, instead of paying that 5-9,000 a year Premium, pays the same or more in Taxes)
gets the same HC as the $0.00 paying person ?

Now before little feet start stamping,
the person paying 5-9,000.00 a year
is also, and will continue, paying to help people that really need help.

"So the 5-9,000 paying person,
(who now, instead of paying that 5-9,000 a year Premium, pays the same or more in Taxes)
gets the same HC as the $0.00 paying person ?"

 So that's one of the big questions.

 Since the current 5,000 a year premium is sustaining less than 1/3rd of the current medical treatment system then where does the other 2/3rds come from?  People would need to pay more that $5000 a year in taxes.

 If the average non-payer is due to lack of income, taxes won't resolve that issue.  That's part of why tax the rich is in play.

 ACA in my opinion had a decent idea, basically treating healthcare like car insurance, but it needs improved upon.  Unfortunately since people think Obama before they thing healthcare they want ACA removed instead of improved, which puts us back to square one.

 For instance pre-existing coverage denial.  People don't want that, but they also don't want to let the program that stopped it to exist.  It mitigated a lot of harm done by HMO, so people want those impacts reduced, but want the program that limited their impact removed.

Is that like Car Insurance in Minn and AZ ?
(many other states, may, be similar)
Where a person can get Car Insurance for ONE WEEK,
then go into the DMV office and get license tabs for ONE YEAR.

Meaning 11 months and 3 weeks, one can drive with NO insurance.
Because I, (and about) 89% of the others that drive, PAY for the Non-Insured drivers.
Is that what you mean when you say: ACA in my opinion had a decent idea, basically treating healthcare like car insurance,
Like that ?

 No not like that.

 ACA doesn't allow 1-month payments of insurance to apply for a year.  You don't get registration tags for your body every year.
 

 Car insurance has all legal drivers, as in those who pay for insurance when their car is in legal operation on the road, pay into the system.

 This means anyone using a vehicle on public roads should contribute to the system, instead of 20-30 year old drivers opting out.  This creates a more predictable and manageable financial pool even amongst competing companies.  

 Health insurance isn't exactly the same as in identical, extremely similar, precisely comparatively equal or otherwise similar to extreme degrees.  The concept in application is what shares similarity, but not identical attributes.