stockingfull wrote:Who's said our plan is going to be identical to that of some particular other country for purposes of comparison?
I do not concede, any more than I did for your completely invalid "zero sum" analysis, that quality, or speed, or price will have to be sacrificed to reform the system -- at least as compared with the profit-driven private system we now have. To the contrary, I believe it will be better, faster and cheaper per capita than our currently-broken system.
My first name is Jon, and stockingfull refers to old yuletide threats when I was a kid. Get it?
Thanks for sharing the monikers.
Well, Jon, I admire your optimism. (You are a glass is half full guy and I am a glass is half empty guy.)You should be running a business.
In reality, often businesses that fail in good times fail because they over-extend themselves. Instead of saying "let's be all we can be" they say, "We are going to have the highest sales and greatest share of the market." They cast aside limitations.
The US is over extended. Politicians are casting aside all limitations. Resources are not unlimited. Any analysis must consider these realities.
I too believe the system can achieve greater efficiency and extend more benefits to more people but to do so as you describe, will change care as we know it, or bankrupt us. The assets of wealth will have to be tapped and distributed. The excesses of the pharmaceutical companies and certain health care providers must also be reckoned with to achieve it. Those actions are also subject to negative outcomes.
Preventive care is always a good idea but many won't or can't do it even when granted the opportunity. Those who embrace it are already getting it because they insist on it.
Many insist that our current system is broken. I disagree. The only broken part is that the poor and the disadvantaged need a safety net of care. I dont' think a major overhaul is in order.
Recall that we discussed mobocracy in previous threads and I remind you that though "you won", as Obama and you have pointed out, in a republic, the minorities of all types have rights to be protected including the wealthy. The 16th amendment wasn't granted to initiate a communist government. It was for the purpose of funding a republic.