Macron wins

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Charles Fout, Apr 24, 2022.

  1. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Having lived in a country that had a market for primary care, I know it works. Care there was much, much cheaper than the US. But, to be fair, since there also was a different cost of living generally, I don't want to make a claim I can't back up on how much of that was due to competition and how much to other factors.

    As for information asymmetry, that's true when hiring any expert advice or services. But I don't mean to totally dismiss it as a concern, especially for emergency care, where it's not like one is in a position to shop around.

    Why do you do that? This conversation was perfectly civil.
    Dustin and Bill Huffman like this.
  2. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Then believe it or not, I wouldn't object to addressing this publicly, even if it cost more (which apparently everyone else in this conversation seems to believe it wouldn't).
  3. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Just to make sure Politics topic have the proper spice to it. I appreciate that you actually address the arguments, and understand that libertarians, no matter how dogmatic or wrong, are not the real enemy. We all have autocratic fascists to worry about.
    Bill Huffman likes this.
  4. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    That would be a significant improvement. If you insist on the constraint that poor people should stay on a separate system for their basic health needs (while making sure people with any political capital have no stake in such a system), and need to go through a burocratic purgatory to atone for their crime of being poor. And since the society seem to insist on this system, by all means, let's shore up Medicaid. Now, if there was a way to bring Manchin on board...

    (structurally, the same argument can be made on why "school choice" movement is harmful. And because harm in our society accrues as it does, some may call it racist.)
    Rachel83az likes this.
  5. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Poor people should have good quality health-care system.
    But we shouldnt punish more fortunate people who choose supplementary or alternate health care systems or combination.
  6. Rachel83az

    Rachel83az Well-Known Member

    Who's talking about punishing people?
    Johann likes this.
  7. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Does Lerner mean, "punishment" by making wealthier people help pay for it, possibly? My take: Here, everybody pays - from taxes. Those who are wealthy enough to have supplementary options -- they buy them, if they so choose. I believe nobody's punished. The system is there for everybody. Everyone has to help pay. That's how it works. It's WAY better than "First you get sick. Then you go bankrupt."

    To those Americans who decry a tax-funded single payer healthcare system, I ask "then, what do YOU get for your taxes ...that we don't?"
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2022
    Rachel83az likes this.
  8. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Well, the fact that private plans can't cover services covered by OHIP means the wealthy enough can't have their own wholly separate system. Which for me, is a feature not a bug, but it is in fact what some are complain about and could characterize as "punishment". Hogwash, of course, but the PR and lobbying dough American health insurance have (paid by our premiums) can make people believe it.
  9. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Yes, I agree. Hogwash. Totally. Пропаганда (Ukr. "Propaganda")
  10. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    That was exactly my dear departed sister's argument! She made all the right choices to have excellent health care. Folks that don't have good healthcare are to blame for the problem they have and bailing them out of their self inflicted condition would punish her because she would have to pay for it! Sorry I was incomplete in my previous description.
    Rachel83az and Johann like this.
  11. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Yes, but Krispy-Kreme thought they could come in and uh - cream off some easy dough. Tim's kicked their butts and they retreated back across the border.

    I think Tim Hortons (apostrophe removed by order of the Quebec French Language Police - I kid you not! ) has mediocre and overpriced products and I'm told they are a miserable company to work for. I don't mind the occasional visit to McDonalds for "coffee-and" and they're very well-priced. Two of my adult grandkids worked p/t there for years in their teens (as did their father in the late 80s) and all say McD's treated employees well.

    But Tim Hortons showed Krispy-Kreme a lot of fight -and won. And I enjoyed that. I liked it when Target left, too. They might be OK in the US, but the couple of times I was in the Canadian stores - no sweet clue... lame. They lost a billion dollars, dumped their Canadian CEO and accepted the resignation of his US counterpart. Fun day, for me.
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2022
  12. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Thanks Bill. Looks like I made a correct assumption for once. Goes to prove even a broken clock is right, twice a day. :)
    Bill Huffman likes this.
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    If that's your description of what a public system is like, you're not doing a very good job selling it. But either way, I'm pretty sure I didn't "insist" on anything. For example, at least in Virginia there are two different programs for those who need help with healthcare. One is Medicaid, the other is normal insurance subsidized (as part of the ACA, IIRC). (Note: I'm not insisting on that either, just pointing out there are more ways than one to do this that would preserve the benefits of a market system without leaving the poor to do without healthcare.)

    That seems inconsistent. You believe that in health care, a public system used by those of lesser means with a competitive system for those of greater means is bad, but that in education that's good? Because the wealthy have always had school choice.

    Some may, but if so they should spend some time talking to parents of color who support school choice.
  14. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    I have my preference, but would surely take other paths to the same destination. I'm not Bernie Sanders.

    So for them, most voucher systems sold as "school choice" amount to a tax cut. And relieving our rich from the burdens of taxation is so down on my list of priorities I'm not sure it's even there.

    No, the issue is that "school choice" is a part of war on the public school (public anything, really; the Right even has it for the Post Office). When you give middle class an opt-out valve, there's less pressure on the state to keep investing in the public system. The resulting failures then justify more "choice", more cuts, and new flight, completing the vicious cycle. Every situation is complex and noisy, but I don't think you can deny some of this happens.

    Also, I'm not old enough to know it personally, but I saw statements that "school choice" movement greatly expanded in the wake of public school integration and busing. Which would make a lot of sense; again, correct me if this is wrong.

    Many of us would benefit from talking to parents of color. We should also talk to parents of color left behind in public system that's losing best students and most engaged parents, and as inevitable consequence, resources.

    Thing is, parents would avail to the best option for their kids. I know I would. I like our little charter schools, and they have very clear geographic reason to exist (this little upscale-ish beach neighbourhood is across the long bridge from the rest of the district and its huge schools). But this makes me uninformed and disinterested in how that school district is run. Coincidentally, the charters are almost-all-white, and the district just happens to be majority Hispanic.
    Rachel83az likes this.
  15. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I've had an eclectic career. A result of it has been two federal government pensions (military and civil service) and two government-provided health plans (TRICARE and BC/BS).

    Exceptional? Not really. It's what most people in social democracies expect and receive as a matter of course. Yet, in the U.S., it is unusual. It means the government is paying me whether or not I work (and more when I take Social Security) and providing me healthcare for a very low cost with almost no out-of-pocket expenses or deductible. Not bad for a welfare kid who has never inherited a dime. The government took care of me when I was a child and is still doing so to this day. I never feel entitled and I always feel grateful.
    Rachel83az likes this.

Share This Page