This is what i tried to say, but it seems like nobody want to hear it.

Sorry, that was a little jarbled. Basically, health care providers are getting paid one way or another. Either someone who can afford healthcare pays, or people who cannot afford healthcare have it paid for them via their lower insurance costs. So if the healthcare provider has a guaranteed paycheck, regardless of prices, why would they lower prices?



The problem is that while some HAVE been trying to work on it, democrats throw a fit when anything is tried to be done about it. So it's called ObamaCare.


This post was edited by Shiner on Feb 12 2015 03:19pm

the idea of a single payer system would be that government pays for everything and healthcare vendors would have to compete with one another to offer the lowest prices that meet certain health standard requirements (because govt is not operated for profit and would actually look out for people)

Completely not the case though. As it stands, this is a trainwreck.

It is not a single-payer system. The best thing that could happen at this present moment isn't a full national single-payer system, but rather making the health insurance industry non-profit. The non-profit competition model is very effective in insurance. The Swiss, who have a similar system to ours, did this and their health care stayed private, and their GDP expenditure on health dropped 5% while they achieved universal coverage. It would be a scandal is a family was bankrupted by medical costs in any European system, even the ones that are mostly still private.

And then do this for a couple decades before trying to do anything new on a macro level. If it is working well by then leave it alone. It probably won't be lol.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 12 2015 03:37pm

No I don't, libertarians either fall in the small portion of the Republican base or the medium portion of self-identified Independents.

It's not just them that are pushing this fringe position though. Support among core Republican constituencies has dwindled over time for things like acknowledging climate science and evolution, and I could see how this could be next. Prominent Republicans, like several of their presidential hopefuls, and even elements of the national party have used the anti-intellectual streak running rampant in the party and its inherent distrust of government to turn these things into partisan issues. There's no other way that I can explain a 30-point lag among Republicans for such a mainstream opinion. It's not just the libertarians.

Well first off serum sickness comes from injections of antitoxins and injections used to treat infections. You can't get it from vaccines.

I don't know how you could get shingles, meningitis or hepatitis from a sterile needle either. Feel free to let me know though.

Other things such as immunocompromised kids or allergies should be taken into account obviously. I don't think anyone here is advocating giving a child a vaccine they are known to be allergic to.

This post was edited by Scaly on Feb 12 2015 05:34pm

yes, the statistics speak for it especially regarding the more serious diseases. Influenza shots i'm not really sure about, but it's probably because of the cautiousness the anti-vaccers induce by being so loud.

The problem is the way it is advocated, there will be no chance for a parent or medical practitioner to even test the child before the fascist pro-vaxxers start force vaccinating in school without consent. The more militant pro vaxxers become, and the more people believe that everyone can be vaccinated, the more nurses and other vaccine administrators just go ahead and do it without checking any other indications. This is how a stronger anti vaxx movement will be built, as stories of allergic or compromised children getting sick are going to snowball because of the overbearing, one-size-fits-all talking points coming from the pro vaxx crowd.

Like I said, it's important for the talking points to change to "most children can or should be vaccinated. The small number of cases you have heard about causing harm to children is because they weren't tested for XYZ before the vaccine was administered. If you are worried, have you child checked for allergies, etc and then proceed with the vaccine" and NOT "you are A FUCKING MURDERER if you don't get every single child vaccinated against their will!" which is what I hear people saying these days.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Feb 12 2015 06:18pm

Want to know how to stop the "militant" pro-vaxxers? By ostracizing the legitimate nutcases. If you have a child that is alergic to some ingredient, has a weak immune system, etc. that's fine. No one is advocating forced vaccinations of those people. As a matter of fact, we want those types of people to benefit from herd immunity.



Didn't Obamacare make it so that roughly 80% of the premiums go to healthcare only and NOT to administrative costs and profit? That's a pretty good first step towards your goal. The fact of the matter is that the non-profit mechanism is only a small part of the equation when it comes to America's outrageous healthcare costs.