554

Opinion | We’re Already Paying for Universal Health Care. Why Don’t We Have It? (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Archive link: https://archive.ph/9rurk

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Summarized: So why don’t they have it?

Lack of universal coverage. The piece argues that the only solution is universal coverage that is automatic, free and basic. The current U.S. system has many pathways to eligibility and coverage, resulting in many people falling through the cracks and remaining uninsured.
Incremental reforms are not enough. The authors argue that incremental reforms like extending coverage to more people or imposing minimum standards will not work. Over 50 years of such piecemeal policies have shown that this approach is not effective.
Coverage is complex and uncertain. Health insurance in the U.S. is complex, with many different plans and eligibility requirements. This leads to many people losing coverage or facing the risk of losing it. Even the Affordable Care Act did little to reduce this uncertainty.
Cost. While the U.S. spends more on health care as a percentage of GDP, only about half of that spending is financed through taxes. The authors argue that U.S. taxes are already paying for the cost of a universal basic coverage system, but Americans are not getting it.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

The trouble is, none of those are the real reason, which is that the ruling class wants it to have all those "problems" because increasing the risk and cost of people changing jobs helps suppress wages.

You'd think a couple of ivy-league professors of economics would've figured that out. So why didn't they mention it?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Because their arguments can be made empirically and therefore justified. Please find me a member of the ruling elite who will admit what you just proposed. No evidence, no change

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Good question. I know this is an unpopular opinion but maybe... they are actual subject matter experts and you're not?

I know, blaming a group of evil people is tempting, easier to understand and more satisfying that than a complex system of misaligned incentives grown organically through many decades of well intentioned but ineffective measures. Not that I know much about it, but, you know, conspiracy theories tend not to be true.

this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2023

554 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18881 readers

4041 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News