You GOTTA have insurance

[Storker]

I simply do not see how it can be implemented without it being a giant cluster f$&k.

Disregarding American Exeptionalsm and your transitional problems, look at how most OECD countries have solved it.

 

[Marie13]

Disregarding American Exeptionalsm and your transitional problems, look at how most OECD countries have solved it.

Hell of a lot smaller countries without 50 states to get on board.

 

[Storker]

Hell of a lot smaller countries without 50 states to get on board.

*yawn*
As I said, disregarding American Exeptionalism. Most OECD countries have solved your unsolvable problems.

 

[boulderjohn]

*yawn*
As I said, disregarding American Exeptionalism. Most OECD countries have solved your unsolvable problems.

Something I used to say in workshops I presented was that saying a problem is unsolvable gives you a socially acceptable reason not to try.

 

[Storker]

saying a problem is unsolvable gives you a socially acceptable reason not to try.

I'll try to remember that. If I have the conscience to pull it off.

 

[dmaziuk]

*yawn*
As I said, disregarding American Exeptionalism. Most OECD countries have solved your unsolvable problems.

It's a PEBCAK: as long as they're selling it a insurance, it's a non-starter. Change the spiel to healthcare and brainwash for a few decades, then maybe you can deal with problems that aren't between your customers' ears.

On a more serious note, as I understand it WI managed to enact a very similar kind of unsolvable healthcare after WWII as well. It wasn't until Smaller-Gubmint-Reaganomics that it started going downhill; we caught the last of it when we got here.

 

[Ghost95]

It's a shame that health care costs have gotten so high that you can't afford basic healthcare or medication even when working a full time job. If we could find a way to control the cost of healthcare to the point that you would only need catastrophic insurance coverage we'd be better off. Having private but affordable health care would, to me anyway, seem better than having the govt. involved. The problem is it's a catch 22. You have to have the govt. involved to regulate costs but we don't want the govt. involved in free market.

 

[Jcp2]

Health care is a market, but about the farthest you can get from free. Imagine negotiating and shopping while having a stroke.

 

[Gareth J]

Because of our federal system of gov’t, all 50 states will have to be included in the implementation. That’s a big part of the issue.

ETA: I’m not some ignorant twit. I know exactly when the NHS was established.

Sure your not British? We are normally the pessimistic ones, Americans are normally 'no problem, we can do that'.

To quote an American:

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.”​

PS I am was not inferring you where an ignorant twit. Just giving context and information for others reading the thread.

 

[CaveSloth]

I am a single issue voter. I believe universal healthcare will be a monumental step forward in American society and I vote for whoever says they will move us in that direction.