Twenty years ago, Switzerland had a system very similar to America’s - private insurers, private providers - with very similar problems. People didn’t buy insurance but ended up in emergency rooms, insurers screened out people with pre-existing conditions, and costs were rising fast. The country came to the conclusion that to make health care work, everyone had to buy insurance. So the Swiss passed an individual mandate and reformed their system along lines very similar to Obamacare. The reform law passed by referendum, narrowly.
The result two decades later: quality of care remains very high, everyone has access, and costs have moderated. Switzerland spends 11% of its GDP on health care, compared with 17% in the U.S. Its 8 million people have health care that is not tied to their employers, they can choose among many plans, and they can switch plans every year. Overall satisfaction with the system is high.
Like I said, universal health care has worked in many countries for decades. The evidence is overwhelming.
LTMC: whatever do you mean? Socialism has ravaged Scandinavian welfare countries. Just look at this hellhole:
what a wretched monument to tyranny.
ataxiwardance: I’ve constructed a few arguments for single payer universal healthcare in my days. Some economic and some moral. I’m a creative and fairly good critical thinker but no abstract argument ever seem to be as compelling as the (relatively undisputable) empirical evidence that their shit just works better.
Right wing scare mongering and the occasional horror story about NHS aside, I’d be happy to trade such spook stories for the constant nightmare of the US healthcare system.
The day the Supreme Court gathered behind closed doors to consider the politically divisive question of whether it would hear a challenge to President Obama’s healthcare law, two of its justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, were feted at a dinner sponsored by the law firm that will argue the case before the high court.
Say what you want about demands or white-boy dreadlocks, if you think our system isn’t TOTALLY FUCKED you are probably just a moron.
and Kagan is the one who needs to recuse herself?
My father got sick when I was 22… and I was poor. And my father had an ulcer, and it exploded, and, you know, all these toxins get in your blood - and basically, my father died 50 days after his ulcer. So I had a father get sick while I was poor.
My mother got sick while I was rich. I don’t really wanna get into to it, but my mother was sicker than my father, okay? And my mother’s alive. My mother’s fine, okay?
I remember going to the hospital to see my mother and wondering, was I in the right place? Like, this is a hotel! Like, it had a concierge, man! …If the average person really knew the discrepancy in the healthcare system, there’d be riots in the streets, okay? They would burn this motherfucker down.
In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.
Here is the full quote from “Road to Serfdom:”
Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supersede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.
people are still losing their houses to pay for their cancer treatment. and maybe they’re not allowed to be dropped from that plan, but they’re allowed to hike up the premiums to make it impossible for us to pay. all obama did was make it so EVERYONE is allowed to be fucked over, and not just a precious few.
Planned Parenthood 2008 Budget:
Contraception Services: 35%
STI/STD Testing and Treatment: 34%
Cancer Screening and Prevention: 17%
Pregnancy Tests/Pre-Natal Visits: 10%
Abortion Services: 3%
Other Services: 1%