Comments by "" (@TheHuxleyAgnostic) on "Why Are Foreigners Steven Crowder u0026 Sargon Obsessed with American Politics?" video.
-
11
-
10
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@Breadbored. Because your hospital's problem likely has less to do with single payer, and more to do with location. I don't know where you are to blame negotiated doctor salaries for your hospital's problems. Hundreds of doctors in Quebec thought they were being paid too much, by the same single payer system. Ours is a mixed federal/provincial system. Maybe your province isn't putting in enough, on their end.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/quebec-doctor-embarrassed-by-pay-hikes-to-colleagues
Even if doctor salaries stayed the same, in the US, single payer has much lower administration costs. It's the multiple payer system that requires more administration. And, if the US could negotiate drug costs to half, that would also lower costs for hospitals. Switching to non-profit hospitals would also lower costs. On top of the savings, you'd have tens of thousands fewer people dying due to lack of coverage, hundreds of thousands fewer people going bankrupt due to healthcare costs, and over a million people not having to travel to places like India for healthcare they can afford. It is inherently better, without even touching doctor salaries.
2
-
2
-
@Breadbored. I'm nitpicking because I want to be clear about what's what, for anyone reading. You referred to the "Canada" system, not your provincial system. You said that Canada system had "fundamental" problems. Then you gave government negotiated doctor salaries as an example, while leaving out that that's a provincial government negotiation, not a federal (Canada) government negotiation, and that it's not a problem across the whole system. Anti M4A folks love to pick up on any negative anecdotes about the Canadian system, so I just want to be clear.
To be clear, the US already has hospital shutdown problems in less populated areas. Those hospital shutdown problems are even worse in areas that didn't accept federal assistance to expand Medicaid. You don't know if your hospital might have already shutdown if it wasn't for public funding. Keeping hospitals afloat in less populated areas is a fundamental problem for any system, and possibly a worse problem without public funding.
So, your example was neither a "Canada" problem, nor a "fundamental" problem with our system specifically, nor even solely a single payer problem. Our system evolved over decades, so it's also not a problem with any hasty implementation. And, yes, universal coverage is inherently better than not having it, even if there are still issues. If we agree on all that, then we agree your initial post was kinda bullshit, just like I said, as well as some of the other language you used, all of which I didn't misread, at all. If you're reading that I'm arguing against anything other than specific statements you made, then you're the illiterate one.
1
-
1