Hi wavydog,
You get that a statement that government is not capable of running things is a dogma?
If I said the same about capitalism, it would also be a dogma.
A dogma is a top-down belief that is deemed by its proponents to be authoritatively true. A dogma requires no facts to be offered in support. Your belief that government is incapable of running a health system is definitively dogmatic. At least in the way you have used it.
An argument that is built from the facts upwards is something different.
So I'm asking you to build an argument from the available facts. There's no point arguing with dogmas. Adherents don't care about facts. Dogmas are true even in their absence. You will believe the government cannot run anything well and no evidence will persuade you otherwise. That's true, isn't it?
Be honest with yourself. I've argued with people from the right. They will not believe anything else. Every single one of them. It's a central point of the faith. It shouldn't be offensive to you. It's written in stone, that one.
The existing US health system comes 19/19 industrial countries in the most recent study. Let's think about that and work forward from there to build a picture that the US private insurance free market system is a successful model. I find that hard on its face. There are 18 government systems and not a single one is worse than the US model? Coincidence or evidence. I think it is obviously evidence.
Or with the fact the US system is almost twice as expensive as comparable models with health outcomes which are worse. Hard to argue for free market efficiency when that is the case. Right?
This is the sort of place to begin. What is the actual situation right now? It is not so good.
Before you get to beliefs, you start with what is in front of you. That's my dogma, if you will!!
Relatively-speaking, the US system sucks. It is distinguished by the fact it is privately run. Hmmm.
If, like Mitch McConnell, you begin with the right wing notion that the US has the best healthcare system in the world and all that is needed is tinkering, well, there's no conversation to be had. Obviously, he is a person who doesn't care about the evidence. I am sure he has his reasons. But I doubt they have much to do with healthcare. The Republicans believe, after all, that a system like this would take the electorate away from them. Perhaps that is the explanation.
I don't think you have tried that line so far. But nevertheless it is behind the tinkering arguments you suggested earlier. The tinkering ideas derive from the notion that tinkering is all that is needed because the system works well. Well, this isn't true. So that's a problem. And the cures the right wing suggest are nothing other than the old right wing wish list of tort reform etc. Lucky. The exact thing the right wants to be the problem must be the problem.
Okay - let's use that example. If you think tort is the main issue, can you point me to the expense item for tort costs which supports the assertion over the last 30 years?
The witch doctor thing was pretty good though!
Analogies: The "war on poverty" is no more comparable than the US military. The US military seems to be run pretty well by comparison with other countries' militaries, by the way. Should I use this as an example of how governments run things well?
No, I don't think we can say that the US government would be capable of running healthcare well just because they run the US military well. Same with the war on poverty. Different sorts of problem.
But since we have Medicare, which is a government-run healthcare system, let's stick with that as a comparison. In fact, I see dig has begun already.
My starting point is rather humble. Let us note one important fact: Medicare's category of users shares one thing in common. They are all old people. Guess what: old people consume more medical care than other age categories.
Can we agree that is a good starting point for a discussion of Medicare? Lots of old people. Old people are expensive patients.
| 