#-why cant you justify spending less than that on the safety and wellbeing of the people who LIVE in the country?'

[harfblarf]

Also, countries with universal healthcare that aren't the UK and Canada exist...?? You can't "prove" universal healthcare is an inherently bad idea with a sample size of... two. And you especially can't do so without examining the underlying reasons for the issues in those samples??

Anyway I got VERY passionate about this topic, including talking about the common problems in universal healthcare in other countries, similar existing issues in the United States' private healthcare, the relative costs of private vs public healthcare, and how dismissing the issues of other countries' universal healthcare is actually harmful to the campaign for universal healthcare in the US, so I'm putting my long post under a Read More. With headers for each section!

I'll repeat here what I say later in the post, too: it's not an issue of "why should I pay for some random's medical treatment?", it's "why should I pay my government to take care of its citizens?" The provision of services is one of two reasons a population will cooperate with its government. (The other is the threat of violence.) If you are okay with the government spending billions and billions of dollars on a military force and speculative military technology and making weapons that could kill literally all human beings on the planet, all in the name of protecting the land and physical well-being of its citizens from hypothetical future threats, the idea of the government spending money to protect its citizens from very immediate and present threats to their physical well-being via medical care should not be so appalling.

> Universal Healthcare in Other Countries <

Now, I only did a little preliminary searching, but the common trends I saw in searching "[country] healthcare issues" for other nations with universal healthcare were typically: poor integration of technology at the current time, costs, and low numbers of medical staff due to harsh and unappealing labor conditions.

> Healthcare in the Current United States <

The first and last points are already major issues in the United States. Technology integration is a huge undertaking; locating, organizing, and digitizing decades of physical patient records while balancing patient privacy and the inherent need to use third-party (usually produced by for-profit private companies) software to do so, all while also retaining access to both physical and digital records so the medical centers can continue to function, is grueling and expensive.

Private healthcare does not fix any of this.

Huge portions of the medical field in the US are also wildly inhumane to their workers, especially emergency workers. Burnout and physical consequences are common. This is also not something private healthcare fixes. Actually, it complicates treatment and patient intake, as information like which private insurance they have and if they have it at all bloats overhead and results in payments going to collections or going unpaid entirely. Really the only medical positions that are remotely cushy are highly educated specialists, who still deal with high patient load because the number of USAmericans who can afford to pay through the nose for several degrees-- since our educational system is private at the university level-- is exceedingly small. Since medical students are notoriously badly treated and subjected to grueling and miserable courseloads, it is also not very appealing, further shrinking the pool of prospective doctors.

Private healthcare not only does not fix any of this, it is also exacerbated by private higher education.

> Healthcare in the United States: Private VS. Public <

Carrying on: Cost IS an issue relating directly to the public versus private healthcare decision... but the cost exists either way, it is purely a question of who is paying it. I could simply argue that public healthcare is a cost the US is more than equipped to pay, given its exorbitant and often pointless military spending, but let's actually set that aside. I am instead going to argue that private healthcare is already creating costs for the US government, and it's a way shittier deal than public healthcare.

If healthcare is private, cost is concentrated on those most in need of help, which in the economic system of America inevitably results in loss of life, as well as more indirect consequences, like people becoming disabled due to inadequate care and thus being forced out of the workforce, and so on. These consequences directly impact the economy: reduced workers (including experienced and skilled workers), reduced monetary flow, and unnecessarily increasing the expense of public welfare services. People die and require funerary services; the sick continue about their daily lives and jobs out of necessity due to the lack of resources and treatment, leading to increased spread of viral and bacterial diseases (we saw with COVID how much a sick population stresses normal function and increases cost of living); people die alone and without treatment in their homes, leading to mandatory police investigations and often crime scene cleanup crews to handle biohazardous materials from decomposing bodies; people are rendered unhoused-- by developed disability, medical costs, or even simply inadequate medical worker's compensation during their illness or injury--and increase the costs of public services like shelters and food banks, while the government typically responds to unhoused populations with acts of institutional violence that cost substantial amounts of money (development of hostile architecture is frequently paid for with grants; installation of such hostile architecture in cities is often government-funded and more expensive than non-hostile designs; police action to evict and dismantle encampments of the unhoused tends to be expensive and cruel, paying for specialized equipment as well as armaments like tear gas and the budget for the police department itself).

If healthcare is public and free, cost is distributed, and the most vulnerable populations have better (if still not perfect) odds of receiving adequate care, saving lives and bodies. Loss of life and ability is decreased. Fewer people have to reinjure themselves or exacerbate their illnesses for fear of the cost and inaccessibility of treatment. "Why should I pay for some random person's healthcare?", I hear the conservative in you cry out, indignant over anything that feels like an imposition on your rights. Well, let me reframe that. What you are actually asking is "Why should I pay my government to take care of its citizens?", which I would argue is rather the point of the government, at least ideally. Laws and their enforcement, the military, infrastructure like roads and the USPS-- they're all services the government performs for its citizens in order to justify its existence. We need and thus accept the government and its authority because, at least in theory, these are valuable services that keep its citizens, us, safe and comfortable. (The relative success of these services and the theories behind them are more debatable.) If you believe that it is better to live in a place-- city, state, nation, planet, any scale at all-- where people with authority over you leave people to rot rather than provide for their needs, just because that's simpler or cheaper, I have no idea how to talk to you. I cannot find an angle to convince someone who prefers a world of greater suffering and arbitrary subjugation that maybe that isn't a great idea.

Additionally, on a more concretely pragmatic note, costs are hiked by privatization and restriction. If companies that produced, say, medical equipment like MRI machines, medication like insulin, and supportive medical equipment like auto-injectors/blood pressure cuffs/wheelchairs were disallowed from being for-profit and forbidden exclusive rights over life-saving technology (via their patents), costs for these things would drop.

But fine, maybe you value the right to intellectual property and profit over the preservation of human life. Your hyperindividualism is concerning, but even neglecting the private companies squeezing profit out of the sick with the actual equipment and medicine: Private insurance also earns a profit. They charge more than they pay out to the insured. That's their entire business model, and they have done their best to reduce the inherent high-risk high-reward nature of it by hiking insurance costs and minimizing the payouts, as well as complicating the system to make it necessary for a patient to put in excruciating hours (days and weeks, with wait times and phone tag, and occasionally months when it escalates to legal proceedings) of work to get the coverage they are actually owed. While sick and hurt. Cruelty of that aside, the overall cost of insurance is incomparable to the cost of the actual medical treatments. Government-funded universal healthcare is simpler (reducing overhead), does a better job of guaranteeing actual payment to the doctors and hospitals, is less expensive per individual because it doesn't have to turn a profit, and can lighten the overall cost of medical treatment in its area because adequate medical access early and consistently reduces the incidence of more severe medical problems with higher costs.

> Why Dismissing the Issues of the NHS and Other Negative Examples of Universal Healthcare is Not Helpful <

I'll be using the issues of the NHS specifically as an example, but these points are mostly broadly applicable. This is also the section largely directed at people who already support universal healthcare.

The problems with dismissing the flaws of the NHS and arguing that they're preferable to the current status are manifold, but firstly: it's uncompelling. You approach someone who has only seen twenty headlines complaining about the shit wait times of the NHS, and you go "but it's not a big deal actually". This is not convincing. The wait times sound horrible, they think. THEY don't have to wait that long to see the doctor. THEY would rather pay more so they can see their doctor sooner. And sure, it's only "non-urgent" stuff that has to wait-- which isn't even entirely true, but I'll get to that later-- but that can still be painful, and unpleasant. You say to them, "even a lot of discomfort and waiting is better than the current system", but they shake their heads, because for them it isn't. For them, even if medical stuff can be annoyingly expensive or maybe even stressful, at least they know they can make their appointments and go when they want treatment. Even if you elaborate, try to explain, "our system is killing the poor, our system is cruel, many people cannot afford any treatment at all", to someone who is not in that position, this is intangible, and the blame easily foisted onto the victim. "They should have planned better. They should have gotten a better job. They should have put more effort into their education. How did they even get sick? How did they even get hurt? Maybe it was their own carelessness. Why is their carelessness my problem?" You tell someone to accept something that sucks for the greater good, most of the time they're gonna wrinkle their nose and go "whose greater good? I don't wanna." Not even out of lack of compassion, necessarily. People just can't magically project their perspective into something they've never experienced, and instinctively want to protect themselves.

Secondly, the problems of the NHS are very real, and also result in deaths and horrific suffering. Dismissing the issues as "a bit of a wait" sets us up to repeat those mistakes. The extended wait times of the NHS are YEARS, and urgency is decided at the whim of the first person you talk to about your problem. Crippling chronic issues can be left untreated for years because your doctor didn't think it sounded like a big deal; a problem determined "minor" without full assessment could be the early symptom of something fatal; biases in the attending staff get your problem labeled as minor and non-urgent, or even nonexistent, because you are a woman, or a person of color, or trans; because the doctor isn't familiar with your condition, they miss it, and you are left floating in a waitlist with no visible end date; genuinely minor problems escalate because you are left untreated for years; your doctor is given utter control over your treatment and referrals to specialists, subject to their entirely human whims, their easily flawed judgement. Scores of trans people die in the UK each year on waiting lists or while fighting to get past bigoted local doctors who refuse to provide adequate care, many to suicide from the sheer hopelessness of ever getting the treatment necessary to live in any sort of comfort or stability. Abigail Thorn has a detailed and of course fantastically presented video on her experience trying to receive gender affirming care through the NHS. This issue is not exclusive to trans people. It would still matter even if it was, but it isn't. The comments are full of people talking about how their disorders, disabilities, illnesses, and injuries have been failed by the NHS. Ignoring those people and their experiences only communicates that you either really HAVEN'T done the necessary research to promote functional universal health care, or that you don't care about the consequences of those failings.

Thirdly, accepting the premise that universal healthcare means accepting the flaws of the NHS is shooting yourself in the foot for no reason. You weaken your position in the debate, smear the reputation of universal healthcare, and work within a negative framework, when you do not have to. Understanding the problems of the NHS and other countries should not result in surrendering to the inevitability of suffering. Instead, it should result in saying "and we can do better than that". The issues of the NHS are not absolutely inherent to the basic premise "the government funds healthcare so individuals within that country do not have to front the costs themselves". It's a byproduct of the implementation that government chose and the specific circumstances of the United Kingdom's infrastructure, politics, and culture. Bare minimum, the response to bringing up the NHS should be "and you think we can't do any better than the fucking British?", and ideally you should be able to accurately identify some of the issues in the UK's implementation of universal healthcare and point to potential solutions the US could implement, discuss the differences between the US and UK which will change how a universal health care system performs, or cite someone who has done so.

If you're going to advocate for something, don't undermine it in the same breath.

[airoasis]

Ted Cruz Is OBSESSED With AOC

New Post has been published on https://hititem.kr/ted-cruz-is-obsessed-with-aoc/

Ted Cruz Is OBSESSED With AOC

>> Ted Cruz is trying to trick every body into thinking that he’s in prefer of making birth control low cost and to be had over-the-counter. And this was once clear in his response to a tweet that came from AOC. Now this all started with AOC tweeting, delivery manage must be over-the-counter, move it on. Now she adopted that up with a subsequent tweet that mentioned, it must be free, too, like in the UK.Now when it came to the primary tweet, Ted Cruz spoke back to it and said, I agree. Might be, in addition to the laws, we are already engaged on collectively to ban members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, we are able to workforce up here as good. A easy, clean invoice making birth manipulate to be had over-the-counter, interested? So he is not to be trusted, correct? In the beginning I notion, what’s he looking to do? Is he just seeking to latch on to her popularity, bear in mind he was a Tea party candidate. He’s to be despised by way of progressives in every single place the arena, correct, so here is- >> Does he have eyeliner in that photograph? >> I do not know, i do not wanna look at his face. >> okay, ok. >> So here is what we all know, now Republicans have without a doubt supported putting beginning manipulate over-the-counter, you wanna comprehend why? >> can’t wait. >> on account that then it is now not blanketed by means of wellbeing insurance. When you do it that method, it becomes a client product. And so if you are now not competent to afford it, then you’re not in a position to find the money for it. It can be now not protected by wellness coverage since it’s now a client product. That is truely whatever that Republicans have been seeking to do in the back of the scenes in an extraordinarily difficult approach considering the cheap Care Act made birth manage free.>> that’s why Ocasio-Cortez added it must be free. >> exactly. >> Now Cruz is not gonna conform to that. >> No. >> So he is definitely doing two matters right here. One is the trick that Ana’s referring to, why? Cuz they don’t want you to take contraception and then whilst you get pregnant later, they are gonna say, well, i don’t care. You gotta carry the child to term. Now if they have been in favor of contraception, you can have much less abortions within the nation. Theoretically, that will have to make them completely happy, however they’re like, no, we’re religious fundamentalists. And being the American Taliban that we’re, even though 99% of yankee ladies use beginning control, we don’t want them to. And we would like them to take heed to the 1%, which genuinely within the case of the Republicans kinda is sensible. The 1% of theological mullahs that we’ve in this nation, and the 1% that are the richest people in the country, both means, that is who Ted Cruz serves.And then the 2d part of it’s, yeah, hes thirsty. So whenever Occasio-Cortez is doing something, individuals pay concentration. So hes like, me too, me too, me too, me too! Now, seem, that being mentioned, if he comes and concurs with us, I consistently take sure for an answer. So I cant stand Ted Cruz, I consider thats abundantly clear. But if they work collectively to ban lawmakers from doing eyeliner like that, or becoming lobbyists, i’m wholly in want of that. I’ll take sure for an reply. If he needs us to move on his path and say, now, remember how terrible contraception is so we should not make it free, then no deal. >> simply proceed with warning. And finally, I just wanna note that there is an effort by means of Democrats in Congress to do the correct factor relating to contraception. Very curious to see if Ted Cruz signs on to this.I might most commonly wager no. So Senator Murray, representative Ayana Pressley, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others offered the Affordability in entry Act. The invoice will not make birth manage over-the-counter. Handiest the FDA can do this. But it might ensure that if the FDA does act, delivery manage would remain covered via coverage, to prevent a state of affairs where the treatment turns into easier to get but more difficult to pay for. >> look, it can be a part of our health care protection, it can be apparent. And if the Republicans get their way, satirically, we’ll have much more abortions within the country. >> And one more thing, you know why it’s part of healthcare insurance policy and why Obama wanted to comprise it within the inexpensive Care Act? Due to the fact, and the quantity could have extended seeing that, but again then, the federal govt was spending $eleven billion a 12 months on sudden pregnancies.And so it can be part of maintaining the cost of health care down, offering free birth control to ensure that individuals can take control of their bodies and no longer get pregnant if they don’t wish to. >> No, I’ve acquired a different factor cuz i might love to cite to Bible. So have you learnt why devout zealots like Ted Cruz think you should not do birth manipulate? Is it when you consider that he mentioned that, speak about start manage drugs within the Bible, most likely now not. Do they speak about condoms, definitely now not. No, there was once one passage and that’s about how you mustn’t spill your seed.That is the same passage they use to justify being against masturbation. Good success with that. Ok, the only thing much less standard than seeking to ban contraception. Anyway, it can be considering the fact that Onan was once having intercourse together with his brother’s spouse as God commanded. His brother had died and God stated, you must have intercourse with your useless brother’s spouse. Curious option. >> Gigidy. >> okay, however Onan clearly felt responsible, so he pulled out. So this is in the Bible. You can not say i’m saying whatever soiled. It’s in the Bible, ok? >> Do they train this in Sunday school? >> well, they teach you to not be an Onanist, k? So he pulled out and his seed spilled on the bottom. And God was once tremendous indignant. He’s like I advised you to have sex together with your brother’s spouse and ensure you get her pregnant.>> Why did God want that, what used to be the point? >> So again within the day that they had these historic traditions about if your brother dies you have to take his family and in essence preserve them. But at the same time, safety was once partly having sex together with his ex-wife. He did not have to do that, to preserve her, right? But it’s in the Bible. And so all of this anti-masturbation and anti-contraception stuff comes from that bizarre component of the Bible that was once just a passing reference. >> we now have heard you inform this shellfish part of the Bible a billion instances. How come you do not tell this part of the Bible? >> good, I just did, mission accomplished. .

[batterymonster2021]

Ted Cruz Is OBSESSED With AOC

New Post has been published on https://hititem.kr/ted-cruz-is-obsessed-with-aoc/

Ted Cruz Is OBSESSED With AOC

>> Ted Cruz is trying to trick every body into thinking that he’s in prefer of making birth control low cost and to be had over-the-counter. And this was once clear in his response to a tweet that came from AOC. Now this all started with AOC tweeting, delivery manage must be over-the-counter, move it on. Now she adopted that up with a subsequent tweet that mentioned, it must be free, too, like in the UK.Now when it came to the primary tweet, Ted Cruz spoke back to it and said, I agree. Might be, in addition to the laws, we are already engaged on collectively to ban members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, we are able to workforce up here as good. A easy, clean invoice making birth manipulate to be had over-the-counter, interested? So he is not to be trusted, correct? In the beginning I notion, what’s he looking to do? Is he just seeking to latch on to her popularity, bear in mind he was a Tea party candidate. He’s to be despised by way of progressives in every single place the arena, correct, so here is- >> Does he have eyeliner in that photograph? >> I do not know, i do not wanna look at his face. >> okay, ok. >> So here is what we all know, now Republicans have without a doubt supported putting beginning manipulate over-the-counter, you wanna comprehend why? >> can’t wait. >> on account that then it is now not blanketed by means of wellbeing insurance. When you do it that method, it becomes a client product. And so if you are now not competent to afford it, then you’re not in a position to find the money for it. It can be now not protected by wellness coverage since it’s now a client product. That is truely whatever that Republicans have been seeking to do in the back of the scenes in an extraordinarily difficult approach considering the cheap Care Act made birth manage free.>> that’s why Ocasio-Cortez added it must be free. >> exactly. >> Now Cruz is not gonna conform to that. >> No. >> So he is definitely doing two matters right here. One is the trick that Ana’s referring to, why? Cuz they don’t want you to take contraception and then whilst you get pregnant later, they are gonna say, well, i don’t care. You gotta carry the child to term. Now if they have been in favor of contraception, you can have much less abortions within the nation. Theoretically, that will have to make them completely happy, however they’re like, no, we’re religious fundamentalists. And being the American Taliban that we’re, even though 99% of yankee ladies use beginning control, we don’t want them to. And we would like them to take heed to the 1%, which genuinely within the case of the Republicans kinda is sensible. The 1% of theological mullahs that we’ve in this nation, and the 1% that are the richest people in the country, both means, that is who Ted Cruz serves.And then the 2d part of it’s, yeah, hes thirsty. So whenever Occasio-Cortez is doing something, individuals pay concentration. So hes like, me too, me too, me too, me too! Now, seem, that being mentioned, if he comes and concurs with us, I consistently take sure for an answer. So I cant stand Ted Cruz, I consider thats abundantly clear. But if they work collectively to ban lawmakers from doing eyeliner like that, or becoming lobbyists, i’m wholly in want of that. I’ll take sure for an reply. If he needs us to move on his path and say, now, remember how terrible contraception is so we should not make it free, then no deal. >> simply proceed with warning. And finally, I just wanna note that there is an effort by means of Democrats in Congress to do the correct factor relating to contraception. Very curious to see if Ted Cruz signs on to this.I might most commonly wager no. So Senator Murray, representative Ayana Pressley, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others offered the Affordability in entry Act. The invoice will not make birth manage over-the-counter. Handiest the FDA can do this. But it might ensure that if the FDA does act, delivery manage would remain covered via coverage, to prevent a state of affairs where the treatment turns into easier to get but more difficult to pay for. >> look, it can be a part of our health care protection, it can be apparent. And if the Republicans get their way, satirically, we’ll have much more abortions within the country. >> And one more thing, you know why it’s part of healthcare insurance policy and why Obama wanted to comprise it within the inexpensive Care Act? Due to the fact, and the quantity could have extended seeing that, but again then, the federal govt was spending $eleven billion a 12 months on sudden pregnancies.And so it can be part of maintaining the cost of health care down, offering free birth control to ensure that individuals can take control of their bodies and no longer get pregnant if they don’t wish to. >> No, I’ve acquired a different factor cuz i might love to cite to Bible. So have you learnt why devout zealots like Ted Cruz think you should not do birth manipulate? Is it when you consider that he mentioned that, speak about start manage drugs within the Bible, most likely now not. Do they speak about condoms, definitely now not. No, there was once one passage and that’s about how you mustn’t spill your seed.That is the same passage they use to justify being against masturbation. Good success with that. Ok, the only thing much less standard than seeking to ban contraception. Anyway, it can be considering the fact that Onan was once having intercourse together with his brother’s spouse as God commanded. His brother had died and God stated, you must have intercourse with your useless brother’s spouse. Curious option. >> Gigidy. >> okay, however Onan clearly felt responsible, so he pulled out. So this is in the Bible. You can not say i’m saying whatever soiled. It’s in the Bible, ok? >> Do they train this in Sunday school? >> well, they teach you to not be an Onanist, k? So he pulled out and his seed spilled on the bottom. And God was once tremendous indignant. He’s like I advised you to have sex together with your brother’s spouse and ensure you get her pregnant.>> Why did God want that, what used to be the point? >> So again within the day that they had these historic traditions about if your brother dies you have to take his family and in essence preserve them. But at the same time, safety was once partly having sex together with his ex-wife. He did not have to do that, to preserve her, right? But it’s in the Bible. And so all of this anti-masturbation and anti-contraception stuff comes from that bizarre component of the Bible that was once just a passing reference. >> we now have heard you inform this shellfish part of the Bible a billion instances. How come you do not tell this part of the Bible? >> good, I just did, mission accomplished. .