Democrat Debates and Trump

[I-5]

What is the proof? The US is nowhere near the top of any measured quality of healthcare in the world, despite your perception that it might be. A baby born in the US is twice as likely to die in the first year than Germany, and almost 3 times than Japan.

I agree with Riv that it’s easier to trust the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. I think that’s true.

[burrrton]

A baby born in the US is twice as likely to die in the first year than Germany, and almost 3 times than Japan.

I-5, I can't keep repeating myself. You're going to have to trust me on this one- WHO rankings, and infant mortality rate especially, are punchlines in the medical community. They're nonsense.

[I-5]

Punchline lol. Present me with literally anything factual, please. You can’t just say ‘USA, USA, USA’. I’m sure those mothers who lost their kids or their own life don’t think it’s a punchline.

[burrrton]

I’m sure those mothers who lost their kids or their own life don’t think it’s a punchline.

I didn't say the deaths were a punchline, I-5- I said the 'infant mortality' statistics are when comparing them among countries. Virtually no two countries compile it the same way- what one country considers a live birth is different than others, among a million other variances.

As for the WHO rankings, go look at their criteria. Basically, the more socialized a country's medical system is, the higher they rank it. You shouldn't be surprised to hear the US doesn't score very well with them.

And on and on and on.

Believe what you want- I'm done arguing about it. I've done it for too many years to keep addressing the same old points over and over.

[I-5]

My original point was exactly about ‘believing’ vs ‘experiencing’. I’ve experienced both, I don’t have to believe.

[burrrton]

My original point was exactly about ‘believing’ vs ‘experiencing’. I’ve experienced both, I don’t have to believe.

Well, you retreated pretty quickly to what is probably the single most thoroughly debunked talking point for people trying to bag on the US healthcare system.

I'm glad you've had good experiences, though. When's training camp start?

[RiverDog]

What is the proof? The US is nowhere near the top of any measured quality of healthcare in the world, despite your perception that it might be. A baby born in the US is twice as likely to die in the first year than Germany, and almost 3 times than Japan.

I agree with Riv that it’s easier to trust the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. I think that’s true.

Using mortality rates and life expectancy to rate a health care system isn't necessarily a good yardstick. A good example is our obesity rate, which is amongst the highest in the world, which most everyone will agree is a major cause of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and is due to lifestyle rather than the quality and timeliness of medical care.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... 00000-2017

One of the leading causes of death is vehicle accidents, of which the United States has more traffic related deaths than any other country in the world. Canada's vehicle mortality rate is less than half that of the US. Can't blame that on our health care. Additionally, there are some societies where genetics may play a role, and others where diseases are more common due to population densities.

Bottom line is that there are other factors besides the quality of health care that enter into the equations of life expectancy and mortality rates.

[I-5]

I’m not aware of any retreating or debunking, unless you specify exactly what you mean. If you perceive a bias, the US is alone in not taking care of it’s citizens. I guess you can say that’s unfair, but it’s americans that end up suffering more.

Riv, just going by airports I’ve visited out of the 30 countries I’ve seen, the US us the ONLY country I’ve seen that has an obesity issue (with the possible exception of the Bahamas). You’re right, though, that’s a different topic. It’s related to why Americans are so unhealthy.

I used to say the things you're saying...until I moved to another country and saw it firsthand.

Go Hawks!

[Aseahawkfan]

Using mortality rates and life expectancy to rate a health care system isn't necessarily a good yardstick. A good example is our obesity rate, which is amongst the highest in the world, which most everyone will agree is a major cause of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and is due to lifestyle rather than the quality and timeliness of medical care.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... 00000-2017

Additionally, there are some societies where genetics may play a role, and others where diseases are more common due to population densities. Bottom line is that there are other factors besides the quality of health care that enter into the equations of life expectancy and mortality rates.

If we're not living longer and healthier lives while paying more for healthcare, that is a problem. You pay for healthcare to have a longer, healthier life. Not having that is like paying 2000 dollars for an inferior television while your neighbor pays 500 for the same television or better. How else can you rate the quality of your healthcare other than lifespan and physical health? What else are you paying for? Dying earlier or the same while having the convenience of getting a doctor quickly? It that worth paying five times as much for healthcare? Not in my book.

And maybe if the government were paying for healthcare, they would have a vested interest in making sure food companies aren't selling the total crap which has led to the obesity epidemic. They can tax the hell out of food companies selling total crap food. Then if Mr. Obese wants to eat his Big Mac, then he pays the cost in a bigger tax.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. We are not getting good bang for the buck with the current healthcare system. If I'm paying five times as much for healthcare, I want better health and longer life. Otherwise, I want better costs.

[Aseahawkfan]

This shouldn't have to be explained, but the pursuit of profit requires those pursuing it to find a mutually beneficial transaction with those from whom they hope to collect $$.

This doesn't mean there are never bad outcomes, but bad outcomes don't vanish if you move from private insurers to the government. You just lose any chance of recourse because you don't have any choice in who you give your $$ to.

Not necessarily true that you lose any recourse. Our military is socialized and they still answer for their mistakes. Police are socialized. They get sued all the time and recourse is done by the voters and society filing complaints. So there are ways to make a socialized system answer the populace.

I present to you as proof the healthcare we receive in this country.

You're welcome (and I have no idea why someone created a GoFundMe- I don't know anyone who ever has, but I imagine it has something to do with it being an easy way to get a lot of money quick).

And the healthcare in other nations provides a similar level of results for 20% of the cost if we go by lifespan and general physical health which is why you pay for healthcare.

I've literally made all the same arguments you are making. It's real hard to keep them up when a strongly capitalist nation like Germany has socialized healthcare, a great capitalist economy, and similar levels of healthcare quality, lifespan, and general physical health for far lower cost. Why can Germany pull this off and we can't? They have 80 million people. Smaller population, but still very large. We might be able to manage some better system than we have now.

[RiverDog]

If we're not living longer and healthier lives while paying more for healthcare, that is a problem. You pay for healthcare to have a longer, healthier life. Not having that is like paying 2000 dollars for an inferior television while your neighbor pays 500 for the same television or better. How else can you rate the quality of your healthcare other than lifespan and physical health? What else are you paying for? Dying earlier or the same while having the convenience of getting a doctor quickly? It that worth paying five times as much for healthcare? Not in my book.

My point is that there are multiple factors, both environmental as well as genetic, that determine how long a person lives, so many that it is impossible to use it as a standard by which to measure comparative health care systems. I don't know if there is a good, objective way to rate the quality of health care. I'm just saying that you can't do it using mortality rates and life expectancies.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. We are not getting good bang for the buck with the current healthcare system. If I'm paying five times as much for healthcare, I want better health and longer life. Otherwise, I want better costs.

Where was it that I said that we are "getting a good bang for the buck"? I am simply saying that I am relatively satisfied with both my current health care, and how much I am paying for it. Could it be better? Absolutely. Is Canada's health care system better than ours? Hell if I know.

[idhawkman]

Sorry ID, didn’t see your question. Can you sue a doctor in Canada? The answer is yes, if they are considered of breaching the ‘medical standard of care’. There are good and bad, competent and incompetent people everywhere on earth.

https://contelawyers.ca/canada-suing-me ... egligence/

Ahhh yes, and this quote from your article spells out a major reason why costs are lower in Canada. NOTE the $350k limit on pain and suffering.

In Canada, there is a limit on liability awards that prevents individual parties from suing medical practitioners for over a certain amount. The maximum amount you can sue for malpractice is $350,000.

In some exceptional cases, you could get more, but it would likely have to be something extreme.

The good news about this is that this is only what you can sue for pain and suffering. The limit doesn’t apply to other categories, such as loss of income. Those categories do not have the same limits and can reach anywhere on the financial spectrum, from the hundreds of thousands to the millions.

[idhawkman]

Congratulations River. You have a real good plan there. Medical costs are a huge factor in most American families lives when considering retirement. My sister who is 61 is working now because of medical insurance costs. If it wasn't for the high premiums she would have retired 2 years ago.

Hopefully my former employer keeps funding their retiree medical plan. They state over and over again in the policy that it is subject to termination at any time.

Buying health care insurance on your own when you're over 50 is extremely expensive. I'm currently paying $1045/month, and that's a subsidized rate and covers just me. It would have been much cheaper for me to have taken COBRA for 18 months but in order to take advantage of the post-65 benefits, I had to be enrolled in their plan the moment I retired.

Which brings up another point. There are a lot of people that would have retired before 65 but didn't because of the cost of providing health care. If we institute a single payer plan and made it free for individuals, there will be no motivation for people to continue to work until 65, so there's going to be a lot more people retiring at 62 and drawing Social Security. One of the problems with SSA's fund is that too many people are taking their benefits early, which is why they're encouraging people to work longer. Going to a single payer health care system will be a further drain on an already problematic SS fund.

I sincerely hope they do still provide it to you for however long you want/need it. I am however tainted on corporate retirement benefits. I got that way when I saw what happened the GM when they were bought out with funds from their own retirement funds and the courts/congress let them do it. So let me explain, the company had a huge amount of money in their retirement fund for their retirees. The company that took them over used that money to fund the take over and then the company bought an annuity that they gave their retirees and gutted them.

Its been a while but I'm pretty sure it was GM and involved IBM and possibly EDS. Its been a while since I talked to the IBM folks so I could be off slightly on this but the using of the retirement fund is true. I'll look and see if I can find the info on the net.

[burrrton]

I’m not aware of any retreating or debunking, unless you specify exactly what you mean.

If you're not aware of the debunking, I suggest you take your own advice and do some research. I outlined it, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself.

Using mortality rates and life expectancy to rate a health care system isn't necessarily a good yardstick.

It's a completely meaningless yardstick. In addition to your examples, we're a violent, reckless society with (generally) terrible lifestyle habits and a gang problem.

None of that has anything to do with the quality of our healthcare system.

If we're not living longer and healthier lives while paying more for healthcare, that is a problem.

That depends on why you're not living a longer and healthier life.

We are not getting good bang for the buck with the current healthcare system.

THIS is a legitimate criticism. We get fantastic care, but it's expensive. "Is it worth it?" can be debated.

Not necessarily true that you lose any recourse.

I'm not talking about malpractice lawsuits. I'm talking about if Insurer X tells me they won't cover a drug I need (or whatever), I dump them and go to Insurer Y.

If the Feds are your insurer and they tell you no, they won't give two sh*ts whether you're satisfied or not. You'll go nowhere and like it.

I am simply saying that I am relatively satisfied with both my current health care, and how much I am paying for it.

As are the vast majority of Americans. Good luck running on M4A, Dems!

Is Canada's health care system better than ours? Hell if I know.

If you like paying your premiums in taxes, waiting 5 months to see a specialist, and praying the United States doesn't quit innovating and providing you an 'out', yes, it is.

[idhawkman]

I didn't find the exact article on GM or IBM but I found where the "Reversion" started. This might shake you a bit but be comforted because as I was searching it seems that there's been a number of actions since this that have made it more secure. That said, I still don't trust companies or government when they start eyeing a large stack of cash somewhere. They always try and figure out a way to confiscate it from YOU AND ME!!!!

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-12-04-8903150317-story.html

[idhawkman]

I love the ad hominem attacks instead of explaining why Americans resort to GoFundMe (a phenomenon I’ve never seen in other countries), or why a capitalist system is good for your health insurance. They are there to make money first, second, and third. You trust them?! That’s insane.

I think most of the gofundme cases are 1. a scam or 2. very serious and extremely expensive cases.

I think the people in case 2 are there because the insurance industry is broken. Insurance should be there for catastrphic instances only. Routine visits to the clinic and minor outpatient services should be out of pocket 100%. That way, we could afford the catastrophic stuff, pay our own way and get rid of the hypochondriacs plugging up the system. You have a cold, take some cold medicine and wait 5 days for chrissakes!

[idhawkman]

Using mortality rates and life expectancy to rate a health care system isn't necessarily a good yardstick. A good example is our obesity rate, which is amongst the highest in the world, which most everyone will agree is a major cause of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and is due to lifestyle rather than the quality and timeliness of medical care.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... 00000-2017

One of the leading causes of death is vehicle accidents, of which the United States has more traffic related deaths than any other country in the world. Canada's vehicle mortality rate is less than half that of the US. Can't blame that on our health care. Additionally, there are some societies where genetics may play a role, and others where diseases are more common due to population densities.

Bottom line is that there are other factors besides the quality of health care that enter into the equations of life expectancy and mortality rates.

River, don't forget climate, too. I'm sure there are many more Malaria deaths in Phillipines and Panama, etc than there are in Canada and I'm sure there's more freezing deaths in Canada than in the PI or Panama. Many Diseases can't live in cold climates, too. Take for instance Ebola virus.

[RiverDog]

Using mortality rates and life expectancy to rate a health care system isn't necessarily a good yardstick. A good example is our obesity rate, which is amongst the highest in the world, which most everyone will agree is a major cause of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and is due to lifestyle rather than the quality and timeliness of medical care.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... 00000-2017

One of the leading causes of death is vehicle accidents, of which the United States has more traffic related deaths than any other country in the world. Canada's vehicle mortality rate is less than half that of the US. Can't blame that on our health care. Additionally, there are some societies where genetics may play a role, and others where diseases are more common due to population densities.

Bottom line is that there are other factors besides the quality of health care that enter into the equations of life expectancy and mortality rates.

River, don't forget climate, too. I'm sure there are many more Malaria deaths in Phillipines and Panama, etc than there are in Canada and I'm sure there's more freezing deaths in Canada than in the PI or Panama. Many Diseases can't live in cold climates, too. Take for instance Ebola virus.

That would fall under environmental conditions, which I think I mentioned in the thread somewhere.

My wife has been diagnosed with MS for almost 20 years. One of the odd things about the disease is that people that live in the northern latitudes seem to have a higher chance of acquiring the disease. They don't know why. There's also genetic diseases, like cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, the acquisition of which has nothing to do with health care. That's why your doctor wants to know about your family history, to determine your risk of certain diseases.

[I-5]

Burrrton, I haven’t seen a single post of yours debunking anything at all or presenting facts. I guess you can keep repeating yourself or not, but I don’t see any substance beyond your ‘trust me’ statement.

ID, you think routine visits should be out of pocket and insurance only for catastrophic? I think that’s exactly what the private insurance industry wants you to believe. That way they can keep collect huge monthly premiums while looking for reasons to not cover anyone they deem risky. That’s the biggest way they can profit, so that’s what they’ll do. Not seeing a doctor unless it’s dire as one of ID’s recommendations is a sad commentary on the current system.

If the country could start again from scratch, is this how you’d build the healthcare system? I’d really like to know what the ideal system is to people.

[RiverDog]

If the country could start again from scratch, is this how you’d build the healthcare system? I’d really like to know what the ideal system is to people.

There's a lot of things that we'd all like to change if we could start the country from scratch. And why stop with starting the country over from scratch? I would love to create a world where human beings and companies always worked to their full potential without a profit motive, where politicians didn't steal funds dedicated for one program and apply them to a pet program of their own, where government employees were actually held accountable for their performance, where government agencies didn't get into turf wars with each other, and so on. Perhaps then I could rely on the federal government to run a massive health care program.

[idhawkman]

That would fall under environmental conditions, which I think I mentioned in the thread somewhere.

My wife has been diagnosed with MS for almost 20 years. One of the odd things about the disease is that people that live in the northern latitudes seem to have a higher chance of acquiring the disease. They don't know why. There's also genetic diseases, like cystic fibrosis and Down's syndrome, the acquisition of which has nothing to do with health care. That's why your doctor wants to know about your family history, to determine your risk of certain diseases.

Is that in the Americas or around the globe? I did not know that about MS. I have 3 of 4 cousins from the same family that have MS (got it from the wife my uncle married). Devastating disease to be sure. One of them works in your neck of the woods int he tri-cities and probably worked at the same place you did. Nevertheless, thank you for the info and all the best to you and your wife.

[idhawkman]

ID, you think routine visits should be out of pocket and insurance only for catastrophic? I think that’s exactly what the private insurance industry wants you to believe. That way they can keep collect huge monthly premiums while looking for reasons to not cover anyone they deem risky. That’s the biggest way they can profit, so that’s what they’ll do. Not seeing a doctor unless it’s dire as one of ID’s recommendations is a sad commentary on the current system.

Quite the contrary I-5. Catastrophic insurance is pretty cheap or it was until ObumerCare put most of them out of business since they didn't cover things like birth control etc. You could pay about $100 a month for a family of 4 for catastrophic which kept you from bankruptcy. That would leave about $11,000 or more available for routine doctor visits, xrays, etc. But the curious thing is that when you let the local practitioner that you are paying cash, they have a reduced fee for your visit and services. This is because they don't have to have their office staff file for the insurance, then fight with the insurance company about the proper codes and allowed codes, etc. Additionally, you could join a coop for your routine care for about $50 a month and take care of most of the routine costs.

These are simple solutions that could be implemented by people like me who do their research and buy their health care logically. What it doesn't include is paying for other people to go to their doctors because they stood in the pouring rain without a coat or they wore shorts to school in January. I've seen both multiple times and they wonder why they get sick.

[RiverDog]

Is that in the Americas or around the globe? I did not know that about MS. I have 3 of 4 cousins from the same family that have MS (got it from the wife my uncle married). Devastating disease to be sure. One of them works in your neck of the woods int he tri-cities and probably worked at the same place you did. Nevertheless, thank you for the info and all the best to you and your wife.

Around the globe. From WebMD:

MS is more likely to affect people who live in certain places and belong to specific ethnic groups. It’s especially common in cooler climates like Scotland, Scandinavia, and throughout northern Europe -- places that are farther from the equator. People who live close to the equator are least likely to get it. In the U.S., it affects white people more than other racial groups.

https://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosi ... s-causes#1

[burrrton]

Burrrton, I haven’t seen a single post of yours debunking anything at all or presenting facts.

I explained it to you in broad strokes, and it's been debunked for decades. If you can't google, don't come to me. I'm not going to cover the moon landing with you, either.

Not seeing a doctor unless it’s dire as one of ID’s recommendations is a sad commentary on the current system.

I think the sad commentary is how some people argue cocksurely about US healthcare while not knowing the first thing about the bunk nature of "statistics" they cite and thinking premiums for catastrophic insurance are "huge".

[idhawkman]

Not seeing a doctor unless it’s dire as one of ID’s recommendations is a sad commentary on the current system.

I think the sad commentary is how some people argue cocksurely about US healthcare while not knowing the first thing about the bunk nature of "statistics" they cite and thinking premiums for catastrophic insurance are "huge".

Its obvious that I-5 has no idea what the real purpose for insurance is. Insurance is not meant to cover the day to day expenses which you should budget for yourself, it is for the devastating cost of something tragic. Spreading the tragic costs over many makes it affordable for all "in case" it happens to you. Providing insurance to everyone for what everyone gets is just silly and costs more since you have to first wash it through layers of bureaucracy.

Does your home insurance cover normal maintenance, carpet cleaning, carpet replacement, painting, etc on your home? Does your car insurance cover maintenance, tickets or any other costs for day-to-day expenses associated with operating your automobile? Well health insurance should be the same, too. It should cover the major issues and let you budget for your own day-to-day expenses.

[burrrton]

Well health insurance should be the same, too. It should cover the major issues and let you budget for your own day-to-day expenses.

I'm not sure I'd be as absolute, but I agree with you that catastrophic plus an HSA-style solution would be a great fit for many (most?) people, and would have the further benefit of driving down costs (which you covered, too).

[burrrton]

Here, I-5 - this literally took seconds, and represents merely the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/ ... t-w-atlas/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... s-of-life/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103132.htm

[RiverDog]

Here, I-5 - this literally took seconds, and represents merely the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2011/09/ ... t-w-atlas/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... s-of-life/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4856058/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103132.htm

Good rebuttal, burrton.

The same thing is true about using life expectancy as a measure of health care. There's just too many preventable or inherited diseases that have nothing to do with the quality of health care one receives to make it an accurate gauge.

[I-5]

Thanks for the links, burrrton. I read the summaries of each. I do think it's fair to point out inconsistencies in how each country reports their data. At the same time, two of the articles you posted DO acknowledge there is a gap, and theorize why other countries have more success (post natal support visits, extended medical leave, and the prevalence of SIDS among US daycares for example). The last article you posted ends with:

"We need to close the infant mortality gap in the United States," Sicilio said. "I believe we are equipped to do just that."

Pointing out inconsistencies is fair, as is acknowledging that the US is behind and needs to get better. '

ID, I disagree with your position of what health insurance is for. Home insurance and auto insurance calculates damage or loss, which in the case of cars or houses, the way you maintain it doesn't have an effect on loss (unless poor maintenance results in a car accident, which I don't know if they are able to keep statistics of). But with health, preventative care does play a big role in future claims.

"Every individual should purchase an affordable health insurance plan to cover the expensive medical costs incurred for various health related expenses like sserious health disorders or illnesses, routine check-ups, diagnosis tests, physical examinations, prescription drugs, doctor consultation and various other expenses.

The coverage benefits and costing differ from plan to plan and varies with every insurance provider. Hence, one should perform adequate research on the web and compare the free instant quotes mailed to you within seconds before finalizing on the policy.

Health insurance plans enable you to take extra care of your health. This is because, when you do routine physical examinations, if you need to pay a nominal sum to get check-ups done rather than the actual fee, you would not tend to skip these tests. Otherwise, individuals do not go for check-ups in order to avoid the expenses for medical examinations. It also gives the comfort and psychological relief that in case sudden medical expenses are huge, the insurance plan will take care of most of these expenses."

https://www.healthguidance.org/entry/11 ... rance.html

[burrrton]

At the same time, two of the articles you posted DO acknowledge there is a gap, and theorize why other countries have more success (post natal support visits, extended medical leave, and the prevalence of SIDS among US daycares for example).

None of which have anything to do with the quality of the care we receive. If you want to argue for more frequent follow-up visits, or extended maternity leave, or whatever, feel free to do so. I'll probably join you, in fact.

From right above your quote (and to be fair, you covered this in your parenthetical, but it's worth repeating):

"Parental leave policies have tremendous influence on health outcomes for both mom and baby, as well as long-term economic impact," McKyer said. "Studies show that in countries where there is a generous parental leave policy, there are tremendous effects on morbidity and mortality rates of infants and young children. They're considerably less likely to get sick enough to require hospitalization or to die. Again, it's investing on the front end so that we're not paying on the back end."

[I-5]

If those benefits you pointed out were offered in the US, I'm sure parents would greatly appreciate it. That is a part of care that affects overall quality. We don't have to argue semantics, but I think we both agree it would be a good thing for the US to support parents that way. Could it ever happen?

[RiverDog]

If those (parental leave) benefits you pointed out were offered in the US, I'm sure parents would greatly appreciate it. That is a part of care that affects overall quality. We don't have to argue semantics, but I think we both agree it would be a good thing for the US to support parents that way. Could it ever happen?

We do have parental leave benefits. It's called the Family Medical Leave Act, or FMLA, which allows for up to 12 weeks leave of absence. In most situations it is unpaid, but many companies, such as my former employer, cover with full pay/benefits, even give the father a couple weeks off. Starting in January of 2020, all WA employers with 50 or more employees will be required to give full pay.

[Aseahawkfan]

There's no way to rationalize paying as much as we do for healthcare that isn't of a higher quality than other first world nations no matter how hard the conservative folk try to paint it as impossible in the United States. It's going to happen sooner or later here for that reason alone.

No matter how many articles folks post, the simple reality is we pay way more for a system that isn't better than other first world nations in outcomes.

[RiverDog]

There's no way to rationalize paying as much as we do for healthcare that isn't of a higher quality than other first world nations no matter how hard the conservative folk try to paint it as impossible in the United States. It's going to happen sooner or later here for that reason alone.

No matter how many articles folks post, the simple reality is we pay way more for a system that isn't better than other first world nations in outcomes.

I agree that some day we'll be going to a single payer system. It's been creeping that way since the '60's. Eventually the Dems will get both a liberal POTUS and a majority in both Houses and it will happen, and once the genie is out of the bottle, there'll be no turning back.

Hopefully I won't live to see it as it will be a huge cluster puck.

[burrrton]

Could it ever happen?

Of course, but if you want it either covered by the Feds or forced on employers by government fiat, you have to describe how to cover it for 330 million people.

There's also an interesting conversation to be had around the question of how much maternity leave (and all the other things you want covered) is ideal.

In other words, I'm sure we could keep improving the numbers by giving people more and more time off, so who told you, say, Sweden was giving the perfect amount? If whatever they offer their citizens is good (and better than ours), why wouldn't twice as much be better?

[edit]

It reminds me a little of the "FIGHT FOR $15" crowd. They moan and b*tch that "U CAN'T RAISE A FAMILY OF 4 ON $7/hr!" as if:

A. Minimum wage jobs are intended for heads of families of 4

B. It's a piece of cake to raise a family of 4 on ~$30K

It's a number some demagogue pulled out of his ass, not tied to anything in the realm of reality, but that doesn't stop economically illiterate politicians from pandering with it.

[burrrton]

There's no way to rationalize paying as much as we do for healthcare that isn't of a higher quality than other first world nations no matter how hard the conservative folk try to paint it as impossible in the United States.

Who told you it isn't higher quality?

[burrrton]

Hopefully I won't live to see it as it will be a huge cluster puck.

Ayup.

I'm not as sure as you are it will be the political success you do, though- throwing 180 million people off the insurance they're used to and happy with won't go over well (similar to Obamacare).

You're correct to note it's tough to put the toothpaste back in the bottle, though (also similar to Obamacare).

[Aseahawkfan]

Who told you it isn't higher quality?

The health outcomes did as in the health data. Are we not using real data to rate outcomes or are we throwing out the data in favor of horror stories for each system?

I'd like proof other than individual horror stories that the German or Canadian healthcare system is worse than ours. You could even toss in Japan if you like. My research is showing similar healthcare outcomes with substantially lower costs, which makes our current healthcare system look like we're vastly overpaying.

You and RD keep tossing out life expectancy and general health are a bad way to measure healthcare and that's just ridiculous. If your healthcare is good, it should improve your health and life expectancy. There is ample proof we're paying more for exactly the same level of healthcare as other nations due to a for profit system. The only caveat being the wealthy can access better care if they can afford it.

[burrrton]

We're looking at data that isn't influenced more, by many orders of magnitude, by other factors, asea.

This has been said multiple times in this thread.

You and RD keep tossing out life expectancy and general health are a bad way to measure healthcare and that's just ridiculous.

I think if you ponder this for more than a moment, you'll realize how ridiculous a statement it is.

LIFE EXPECTANCY DEPENDS ON A MILLION DIFFERENT FACTORS, WITH THE QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE YOU RECEIVE ALMOST NOT REGISTERING.

It's like I'm back in 1998. Jesus.

[I-5]

ASF, 100% agree. At least Riv recognizes that at some point, we will need to go to single payer. Some just can't see how ridiculous the system in the US is until you step outside of it.