Perhaps China is not included among the "developed world." — T Clark
Anyway, the web says that 95% of Chinese are covered by subsidized healthcare. — T Clark
In fact, this argument was the primary reason for post war embedded liberalism. — frank
think the idea was to introduce some form of state welfare in addition to higher wages, etc., in order to keep the masses happy and dissuade them from turning to communism. — Apollodorus
If you nationalize the health sector, more people can afford healthcare but quality takes a hit.
If you privatize the healthsector, quality is A1 but fewer people can afford it.
— TheMadFool
There is nothing intrinsically worse about the quality of socialized health care. There is nothing intrinsically better about the quality of privatized health care. — Bitter Crank
One thing's for sure: the American experience shows privatized healthcare is an utter failure that not only entrenches misery and poverty, but costs multiple times more than a public healthcare system. Those arguing the 'costs' angle against public healthcare are empirically wrong. — StreetlightX
Then what's all the fuss about? I'm curious. — TheMadFool
But as far as principles go, "whatever the US does, do the opposite" is not a bad one. — StreetlightX
Me, I'd call it a case study in failure of healthcare policy. — StreetlightX
He who does not work, neither shall he eat is a New Testament aphorism traditionally attributed to Paul the Apostle, later cited by John Smith in the early 1600s colony of Jamestown, Virginia, and by the Communist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin during the early 1900s Russian Revolution.". -- Wikipedia in the quote from 1 Thessalonians — frank
well, lots of people believe that "private is better" "public is worse". The question isn't whether insured well informed care consumers can get good care in the US, or not. They can. The question is whether the good care they get can be provided for less money (it can) and more equitably (it can). But not within the private, for profit model.
What the US has is a continuum of care quality ranging between excellent and mediocre. Where on the continuum of quality one will end up depends first on money (do you have good insurance) and then on knowledge. One really should get the same quality of care without respect to money or how well can decode the system.
Will everybody get luxury grade care in a single payer, government operated system? It may well be that in the government operated hospital NOBODY gets luxury grade care (private room, order off special menu, private nurses, etc.). And really, why should one get such care? Expensive frills like that relate to the ability to pay, rather than medical benefit.
In the free enterprise system, whether you get care at all can depend on the ability to pay. No insurance? No surgery. — Bitter Crank
Bottom line is that any kind of leftism that discounts the importance of states is in agreement with Neoliberalism for all practical purposes.
To create a counter narrative you'd have to provide a genealogy of states that says they also form spontaneously as something essential to some cultural forms. Like the brain of a society, it organizes and protects. — frank
If you read the thread, you'll find that several people gave really thought provoking answers to the question. — frank
Artificial societies are like Pakistan. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.