quote:
Bronc, you progs get back to me when your message becomes UHC combined with promotion of personal responsibility. "We're going to have UHC in place by 2026, but to do that Americans are going to have to start taking responsibility for themselves, their families, their neighborhoods. That means cutting the obesity rate and not soft pedaling around that issues with notions of food deserts or other distractions. That means the 50% of you who don't pay income taxes are going to pay more. That means those of you who aren't working are going to have to start."

You can't credibly argue for it while simultaneously telling the country that those who don't have health insurance are being discriminated against based on race/gender/etc. and that the people who pay into the system are actually evil and selfish.

Congrats on the straw man argument?

You do realize this is not some new concept, and that if you want to play comparative analysis, UHC systems in advanced economies almost all have healthier populations, lower obesity rates, and better mortality rates and that has, in part, to do with having cradle to grave access to much of the health system without crippling financial burdens. And many do take steps to incentivize healthier habits because it has a direct effect on expenses and taxes. So the system literally becomes aligned with promoting health as a political battle because the party that achieves it can claim reducing public healthcare spending or taxes for it's constituents.

Many, such as France, Denmark, Finland, England, and authoritarian conservatives wet dream country, Hungry, use a combination of taxes, subsidies, and/or pricing mechanisms to promote better health and drive the right incentives. Nothing is stopping America from doing the same on a national level except political willpower.

This post was edited on 7/14/22 at 9:31 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Pettifogger

Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Member since Feb 2012

79415 posts

Posted on 7/14/22 at 11:05 am to Bronc

quote:

Congrats on the straw man argument?

You do realize this is not some new concept, and that if you want to play comparative analysis, UHC systems in advanced economies almost all have healthier populations, lower obesity rates, and better mortality rates and that has, in part, to do with having cradle to grave access to much of the health system without crippling financial burdens. And many do take steps to incentivize healthier habits because it has a direct effect on expenses and taxes. So the system literally becomes aligned with promoting health as a political battle because the party that achieves it can claim reducing public healthcare spending or taxes for it's constituents.

Many, such as France, Denmark, Finland, England, and authoritarian conservatives wet dream country, Hungry, use a combination of taxes, subsidies, and/or pricing mechanisms to promote better health and drive the right incentives. Nothing is stopping America from doing the same on a national level except political willpower.

It's such a straw man argument that you ignore the political messaging portion of my post to skip over to the successfully installed collective healthcare systems that largely lack (at least prior to the last decade), the leech problem we battle?

I offered you a reasonable trade off, are you agreeable to it?

This post was edited on 7/14/22 at 11:05 am

1 ...

Report Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board