Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All" plan is really expensive over a 10-year period....

[Minimalist]

Really?  Britain began the NHS in 1944 in the midst of a war which left them broke... victorious but broke.  By 1947 the whole thing was implemented in England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.

Why is it that furreigners can do it but it takes 'Murricans "40-50" years?  Why is it that we not only can't do shit anymore, we don't even aspire to do shit anymore.  Can you imagine if Kennedy called for the Apollo Program today with the collection of shits we have running things?


Why are we so fucking inept?

[Tiberius]

Really?  Britain began the NHS in 1944 in the midst of a war which left them broke... victorious but broke.  By 1947 the whole thing was implemented in England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.

Why is it that furreigners can do it but it takes 'Murricans "40-50" years?  Why is it that we not only can't do shit anymore, we don't even aspire to do shit anymore.  Can you imagine if Kennedy called for the Apollo Program today with the collection of shits we have running things?


Why are we so fucking inept?

In my opinion, it’s the way government is set up.

In the UK, a bill has to get passed by the commons (the elected representatives) with a simple majority and that’s pretty much it. Commons is almost always controlled by a single party.

In the US, a bill has to get passed by the Senate with a 60% majority, and that’s after a number of riders have been attached. Since a single party is unlikely to have 60% of the votes, the bill has to compromise with the opposition. Then the House has to vote and pass it with a majority. Then the president has to sign it and not veto. Then it has to survive numerous judicial challenges via the courts.

Look at the hassle it took to get Obamacare passed, and even that isn’t safe considering it was 1 vote away from being repealed last year.

Checks and balances work great at thwarting a number of undemocratic things, but it also can cause wreak havoc with certain things.

[Minimalist]

You've learned quickly, Divi Tiberio.  Still, for a nation which built the Interstate Highway System in the 50's and went to the moon in the 60's all using that same system we seem to have lost our way. 

We have no more grand visions.  The US seems to aspire to nothing more than the deep-seated desire to develop a military that can fuck with people overseas at will ( as long as they can't shoot back too effectively!) and a militarized police army at home to keep the populace under control.  That and making sure that rich fucks get even richer while the poor can STFU or be thrown in jail.

I don't know if you ever saw Soylent Green?  That seems to be the sole vision for the future of this country.  The rich live in secure enclaves while the poor sleep in stairways and are scooped up by garbage trucks ( the symbolism is a little heavy-handed ) if they dare protest.

[GUBU]

I don't personally support single-payer. I don't think it's the best way to go in the US.

What's so special about the US that a system which works everywhere else it's been tried wouldn't work there?

---

I think the fact that it was done by a libertarian think tank, funded partially by the right-wing Koch brothers, should actually be seen as a positive, seeing as both generally oppose single-payer.


Just out of interest, and since you have a "Healthcare is a Human Right" image in your signature, what do you support instead of single-payer?

Too many Americans have and like their  employer provided private insurance for single payer to gain widespread traction. From what I know, a two tier system where you can choose between public and private would be the best way to start universal healthcare. Single payer should be a goal,  but it's unrealistic to think we can get there in less than 40-50 years, IMO.

Two tier leads to two outcomes for the public part, either a) carrying the can for when privately insured medical procedures go wrong (thus absorbing the most costly treatments, publicising the costs and privatising the profits) or b) a poor service for poor people.

[The Industrial Atheist]

A savings of $300,000,000 isn't exactly nothing.

[Angrboda]

A savings of $300,000,000 isn't exactly nothing.

It's all relative, and given that those are projections, more like peanuts.

[The Industrial Atheist]

A savings of $300,000,000 isn't exactly nothing.

It's all relative, and given that those are projections, more like peanuts.

It would pay for free college for nearly five years.

[Aegon]

I don't personally support single-payer. I don't think it's the best way to go in the US.

What's so special about the US that a system which works everywhere else it's been tried wouldn't work there?

---

Too many Americans have and like their  employer provided private insurance for single payer to gain widespread traction. From what I know, a two tier system where you can choose between public and private would be the best way to start universal healthcare. Single payer should be a goal,  but it's unrealistic to think we can get there in less than 40-50 years, IMO.

Two tier leads to two outcomes for the public part, either a) carrying the can for when privately insured medical procedures go wrong (thus absorbing the most costly treatments, publicising the costs and privatising the profits) or b) a poor service for poor people.

It's not pragmatic. That's my point. Single payer would not be popular, it would be impossible to implement rn. There needs to be a segway.

[The Grand Nudger]

A transition from a patchwork of private single payer systems to a federal single payer system, you mean?  Like..where the federal government is engaged as the collective bargainer rather than a business doing that same work for-profit?

As a side note, why would it be impossible to implement..it seems like insurance is implementable?

[Minimalist]

Single payer would not be popular

Um.... fuck the republicunts.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/383...ealth-care

The Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows 51 percent of Americans support single-payer, while 43 percent oppose it. 

Single-payer is popular with Democrats, with 74 percent supporting it, according to the poll. Fifty-four percent of independents support single payer while 80 percent of Republicans oppose it.