How can they possibly work?
I gather that there are combos like this working out there right now, so I'm not arguing that they don't or can't. But when I picture the USA firing up a public option and leaving the private industry as it is, I can only picture it failing miserably. So what's making the difference between reality in those other countries and the only outcome I can foresee here?
These are the two processes that I'm stuck on...
1. In the USA, anything that primarily helps people with less money is constantly under attack in government as a waste of money, and only things that the rich use too are protected, because the fundamental force behind how our government works is legal bribery. So the only way for any new program to have much of a chance of lasting would seem to be to make sure the rich are using it too. What would make this not the case in other countries that have intact hybrid health care systems, and how is it the same as or different from here? Is it just that bribery is actually not allowed there so government isn't all about just doing what the rich buy? Does the same kind of general principle I just described here also usually work there, but not in the case of the medical system because they've found some way to protect just this one kind of program from the usual way business is done?
2. A government health care system that was more expensive than private options would be pointless, but, if it were cheaper, it would primarily attract people who are more of a burden to the system, whom the private companies don't want and are always looking for ways to get rid of anyway. This would not only boost the private companies' profit percentages but also make the government alternative look inordinately inefficient every time anybody compared their incomes & outgoes. And "government inefficiency" is the primary battle-cry of those who want to be routinely chopping budgets and closing/cancelling entire programs. So that's just another way that starting a non-universal government program looks like a setup for its own later elimination with a "well we tried so now we know that doesn't work", with the program's head on a pike as a warning not to ever try that "failure" and "disaster" again. But in countries where that hasn't happened, why not? Is there some force that keeps their prices about the same or causes the distribution of different kinds of patients not to go lopsided? Is there just a lack of prowling budget-choppers & program-cancellers always sniffing for their next target in those countries' political cultures? Is there some other kind of protection in place against the natural inclination for patients to self-separate like this?
I gather that there are combos like this working out there right now, so I'm not arguing that they don't or can't. But when I picture the USA firing up a public option and leaving the private industry as it is, I can only picture it failing miserably. So what's making the difference between reality in those other countries and the only outcome I can foresee here?
These are the two processes that I'm stuck on...
1. In the USA, anything that primarily helps people with less money is constantly under attack in government as a waste of money, and only things that the rich use too are protected, because the fundamental force behind how our government works is legal bribery. So the only way for any new program to have much of a chance of lasting would seem to be to make sure the rich are using it too. What would make this not the case in other countries that have intact hybrid health care systems, and how is it the same as or different from here? Is it just that bribery is actually not allowed there so government isn't all about just doing what the rich buy? Does the same kind of general principle I just described here also usually work there, but not in the case of the medical system because they've found some way to protect just this one kind of program from the usual way business is done?
2. A government health care system that was more expensive than private options would be pointless, but, if it were cheaper, it would primarily attract people who are more of a burden to the system, whom the private companies don't want and are always looking for ways to get rid of anyway. This would not only boost the private companies' profit percentages but also make the government alternative look inordinately inefficient every time anybody compared their incomes & outgoes. And "government inefficiency" is the primary battle-cry of those who want to be routinely chopping budgets and closing/cancelling entire programs. So that's just another way that starting a non-universal government program looks like a setup for its own later elimination with a "well we tried so now we know that doesn't work", with the program's head on a pike as a warning not to ever try that "failure" and "disaster" again. But in countries where that hasn't happened, why not? Is there some force that keeps their prices about the same or causes the distribution of different kinds of patients not to go lopsided? Is there just a lack of prowling budget-choppers & program-cancellers always sniffing for their next target in those countries' political cultures? Is there some other kind of protection in place against the natural inclination for patients to self-separate like this?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3l4BSdc
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire