Americans' feelings on single-payer have gone up and down substantially over time. Only a very slight majority of Americans support government funded healthcare for all at this point, and that is a substantially lower number than in many years prior:Well by that metric, the vast majority of people in countries with single payer systems prefer their universal coverage over privatized care.
Beyond this, anytime two-tier systems come into the political forum (injected by conservative parties and pundits), the backlash is overwhelming and shuts the argument down very very quickly:
So here's the situation. In single payer, the overwhelming majority has historically and repeatedly preferred their system. In private systems, there is a growing contingent that is backing single payer, and their numbers will only grow and their voices will only get louder. I mean, Bernie Sanders will not win this year, but his health care mandate, and the support he's getting for it, speaks volumes for the direction America is trending in, whether you like it or not.
Huh, it's almost like government intervention made a problem worse. Funny how that works.
Have you even taken an economics course before? If the government started giving money to buy iPhones, then the demand for iPhones increases. Because demand for iPhones increased, prices would increase as well. To compensate for the price increase, the government would then start loaning even more money. Then the price of iPhones would rise even higher. Starting to see a pattern?
We crush the NHS in ALL cancers. All of them. Because we screen better. Because we have more advanced medications available. Because we have lesser wait times. Look at those numbers- we crush every country on them except Canada, who is fairly close but not quite at our level. And we crush some of them, such as the UK, by a LOT. By thousands and thousands of lives. Even the best adjusted estimates of cancer death rates for age and other factors I can find puts the UK at 24 breast cancer deaths per 100k to America's 19. That's a big difference. You're focusing on prostate cancer, but we are better at all categories of cancer listed, period.
Given your background, it's no wonder you look at things the way you do. You'll fit right in in academia, with all the other people that are shielded from the marketplace that want to dictate what everyone else should do "for the greater good" while they don't have to deal with the consequences.
And why do you think a government that is half controlled by the Republican party that wants to defund everything under the sun will allow anything but an underfunded system to exist? You act like politicians are just going to hop right on board the big government train instead of giving us Medicare for all, which is the far more likely scenario, after which they'll cut, cut, cut the budget every chance they get.
We didn't become the most powerful nation in the world by being like everyone else. You want to be mediocre, you can do that in any number of countries around the world. In America, that's not how we do things, and we've had damn good results with it so far.
And given that I'm a few years ahead of you in the process and that I'm very politically active, I'm sure I'll see you on the front lines. I truly hope that some time with actual patients tempers your idealism, but some people just can't be saved.
They will be the guys pulling the strings, because Congress is where funding is appropriated from. That's how our government works, period. And they will use any national budget item as a political football. We'll be just like the military, put on furlough days and going years without a raise because the budget ceiling keeps getting hit in Washington. That you think politics as usual will change is foolish- the Democratic process merely exists to give you the illusion of choice, the people that make the real decisions don't give a damn about your vote because they can just as easily buy the next guy you elect.
And I strongly recommend this one:
Hint, Article 25 is what you're looking for.
Hint: Article I, Section 8 is what you're looking for. Nowhere does it state that we should set up a "specific" welfare program for health coverage
Epidemiologists tend to have a focus on the underserved and neglected populations, since that's where most of the action is in their field in regard to shifting numbers and making a name for themselves, while health economists tend to take a utilitarian, rather than principle or rights based, view of healthcare, in which the "greater good" is the goal, regardless of what rights or principles one has to trample to get there.
Americans' feelings on single-payer have gone up and down substantially over time. Only a very slight majority of Americans support government funded healthcare for all at this point, and that is a substantially lower number than in many years prior:
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polli...=Opinion&g_medium=sidebottom&g_campaign=tiles
A decent majority oppose Sanders' proposals for healthcare (55% preferring the system remain private, while only 41% favor a nationalized system).
In the long run, I really don't think America is a place where such a system would thrive, and if it were implemented, we'd end up with many of the negatives of socialized systems.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-americans-poor-life-expectancy/#774709643b35
You want people to die in the name of "greater equity?" Fine, but realize that you're doing some harm along the way, because we've got great outcomes for those that currently receive care. You're really throwing the baby out with the bath water all in the name of ideology.
You realize that those are a function of patient lifestyles and not of the health care system itself, right?
I'm just saying that academics in certain circles have a particular ideological bent is all, and that he would fit right in. Health economics is a field that is skewed very far to the left, as are the vast majority of epidemiology programs. Their solutions are, generally, antithetical to conservative principles, as they rely on government spending and intervention to take care of things people should be taking care of themselves. A conservative says put down the donut if you value your health, a health economist asks for donuts to be banned- one approach values freedom, while the other only cares about outcomes. The same general approach applies to the way they look at healthcare- they're looking at bringing the bottom up because that's where the most improvement can be made, at the cost of bringing the top down, limiting options, and causing an explosion in government spending.
There is only one program (NASA) ever to come into existence in this country that our government hasn't ****ed up to some degree, either by underfunding it (the National Parks Service is a great example of this) or by building it completely ass-backwards (the Postal Service, which would run fine if Congress didn't demand they get Congressional approval for every last little thing they do, or CMS, which is a bureaucratic nightmare). I don't trust the same people that can't be trusted to properly fund infrastructure, that can't keep our soldiers from dying in the VA, that took over a decade to figure out how to fix Medicare's payment cap, etc etc etc to run the system that my health and the health of all those I care about depends on, nor do I trust them to be in financial control of my life and career, given that I'm the only male in my family that's made anything of himself and doesn't have a damn criminal record.
I'm not bitter at all, I'm saying I worked hard to be successful. No other industry in the history of this country has been completely taken over by the government, and I just want the same freedom to self-direction that any other professional has, and to not have my entire career in the hands of the sort of people that shut the government down every six months. That's why I'm going to fight a government takeover of health care, and that's why I'll walk if things get socialized. If people think they're entitled to our services, let's see how well they do with less people to serve them. Of course, I'm just hoping there's at least a private separate system- then I can continue to practice outside of whatever socialist nightmare the government tries to enact. Or hell, maybe I should just go into psych or another field where cash-only is an option.
I'm saying it isn't the biggest factor in the outcomes of those diseases. Lifestyle factors are a major issue in disease management, as any internist or family med doctor will gladly tell you.
Yeah, except for the fact we've got a limited training pipeline and residency and every physician that leaves is an actual loss to the system that represents up to 2,000 patients no longer receiving care.
Convincing these guys is a lost cause, man. The only thing harder for them to wrap their head around is bagged milk
Bagged milk just makes sense bro. So much less waste, so much more efficiency.Convincing these guys is a lost cause, man. The only thing harder for them to wrap their head around is bagged milk
