(June 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Are you claiming that enough healthcare exist so that everyone can have what they need when they need it? I doubt that, it rare that I see health care resources sitting idle.

Are you claiming that what keeps economically disadvantaged people from accessing health care is the number of providers available?

Even if we grant as true that there is insufficient supply, increasing the supply isn't going to magically make it available to those who cannot afford it.

This is a multifaceted problem.

(June 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 10:31 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Okay, I understand what you're saying now. The reason you are opposed to Obamacare/single payer healthcare is that they aren't designed to solve a problem we don't have.

Are you claiming that enough healthcare exist so that everyone can have what they need when they need it? I doubt that, it rare that I see health care resources sitting idle.

Really? What healthcare resource is scarce and cannot be easily increased as needed?

If the country needs soldiers, they can force men to fight and die.
If the country needs natural resources, they can force people to give up their claims.
If the country needs your house or land they can take your land and house.
If your company or invention has military value they can take it from you and order you to keep quiet about it.
If the country needs to curb other freedoms for the overall good they encroach on them all the time.
But if you have a pharmaceutical patent, the government is helpless and the poor must simply die.

Or at least that's what the republicans think.

(June 14, 2014 at 11:49 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Are you claiming that enough healthcare exist so that everyone can have what they need when they need it? I doubt that, it rare that I see health care resources sitting idle.

Are you claiming that what keeps economically disadvantaged people from accessing health care is the number of providers available?

Even if we grant as true that there is insufficient supply, increasing the supply isn't going to magically make it available to those who cannot afford it.

This is a multifaceted problem.

CD it does no good to give everyone in the town food stamps to buy food if the only grocery store in that town only supplies enough food to feed half of them.

This is indeed a multifaceted problem that needs to be solved in a particular order. Obamacare and Single payer fail because they exclude critical steps.

If your goal is healthcare for everyone, step 1 is to start producing enough healthcare for everyone.

(June 15, 2014 at 12:11 am)Heywood Wrote: CD it does no good to give everyone in the town food stamps to buy food if the only grocery store in that town only supplies enough food to feed half of them.

This is indeed a multifaceted problem that needs to be solved in a particular order. Obamacare and Single payer fail because they exclude critical steps.

If your goal is healthcare for everyone, step 1 is to start producing enough healthcare for everyone.

Look, I'm no fan of Obamacare. My preference would have been a single-payer system, along with incentives to increase the pool of available care.

There is, IMHO, no step 1. There are steps that need to be taken concurrently, or sequentially, all of which are necessary to ensuing everyone has access to care.

It's shameful to me that in a country as rich as ours, that we can accept that all people don't have access to health care. These are all solvable problems.

(June 14, 2014 at 11:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 10:31 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Okay, I understand what you're saying now. The reason you are opposed to Obamacare/single payer healthcare is that they aren't designed to solve a problem we don't have.

Are you claiming that enough healthcare exist so that everyone can have what they need when they need it? I doubt that, it rare that I see health care resources sitting idle.

Are you claiming that healthcare scarcity is the reason people can't afford it? That our world-class healthcare system is so devoid of resources and manpower that there is no other recourse but to charge five and six figures for routine surgeries? I'd like to see proof of that claim.

(June 15, 2014 at 1:18 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 15, 2014 at 12:11 am)Heywood Wrote: CD it does no good to give everyone in the town food stamps to buy food if the only grocery store in that town only supplies enough food to feed half of them.

This is indeed a multifaceted problem that needs to be solved in a particular order. Obamacare and Single payer fail because they exclude critical steps.

If your goal is healthcare for everyone, step 1 is to start producing enough healthcare for everyone.

Look, I'm no fan of Obamacare. My preference would have been a single-payer system, along with incentives to increase the pool of available care.

There is, IMHO, no step 1. There are steps that need to be taken concurrently, or sequentially, all of which are necessary to ensuing everyone has access to care.

It's shameful to me that in a country as rich as ours, that we can accept that all people don't have access to health care. These are all solvable problems.

Single payer doesn't give people access to healthcare if there isn't enough healthcare to go around.

If the government can build roads and employ policemen why can't they build hospitals/doctors offices and employ doctors and nurses? If the government can recruit and train an army of soldiers why can't they recruit and train an army of health care providers? I have no problem with government providing healthcare as long as there is also no impingement on a private market that works alongside it.

Edit: Also we can't be borrowing money to do it either.