Where has this mmoffitt been?

This is actually a coherent position that's not obviously wrong. :-P

Seriously though, I think your point that health care would be mostly solved if we fixed the distribution problem is nearly right. But healthcare is such a special case that it's qualitatively different. If you spread out all the money in the U.S. we'd each be worth about a half-million dollars. (2 years ago) But one heart attack - even a less-severe one - will cost you about three-quarters of a million. (7 years ago)

Two two problems are that:
1) Medical costs vary too much for people to cover catastrophic events. We need to spread that across the population.
2) Medical costs are too high specifically because we generally aren't in a position to comparison shop or negotiate at the point of needing the most expensive treatments.

Single payer solves both of these.

As for the social issues, I don't see how racist immigration policies, anti-gay policies, anti-abortion policies, or intelligent design in schools are improved by more equal distribution of wealth.

You'll find absolutely no argument from me about Single Payer (check out the old arguments I was in with Scott around the time the ACA was being considered, for example).

But your heart attack counter-example is a bit off. If, in fact, we were all worth half a million, could we all afford insurance? Of course we could. The point I was trying to make is that if you are foolish enough to have a health care delivery system that includes private health insurers competing over dollars people intend to spend on health care but which will be re-directed to shareholders instead, then a more equitable distribution of wealth would only aid that system by allowing everyone to participate in it.

The abortion issue is one I already spoke of. But, as I said, not all social ills would be cured. However, (and IMO this a HUGE However), more equitable distribution of wealth would mean fewer than twenty-some per cent of our children living in poverty, fewer of us food insecure, fewer of us domicile insecure, more of us with access to health care, etc.

But especially after yesterday's special election results, I think those things that I know you and I oppose about our society are not only unopposed by the masses, but are actually supported by the masses. To borrow from a comedian, "There's no fixin' that. That is forever."

Post #418,644 by drook 6/21/17 11:25:44 AM 6/21/17 11:25:44 AM Reply	Where has this mmoffitt been? This is actually a coherent position that's not obviously wrong. :-P Seriously though, I think your point that health care would be mostly solved if we fixed the distribution problem is nearly right. But healthcare is such a special case that it's qualitatively different. If you spread out all the money in the U.S. we'd each be worth about a half-million dollars. (2 years ago) But one heart attack - even a less-severe one - will cost you about three-quarters of a million. (7 years ago) Two two problems are that: 1) Medical costs vary too much for people to cover catastrophic events. We need to spread that across the population. 2) Medical costs are too high specifically because we generally aren't in a position to comparison shop or negotiate at the point of needing the most expensive treatments. Single payer solves both of these. As for the social issues, I don't see how racist immigration policies, anti-gay policies, anti-abortion policies, or intelligent design in schools are improved by more equal distribution of wealth. -- Drew
Post #418,645 by mmoffitt 6/21/17 1:30:56 PM 6/21/17 1:30:56 PM Reply	I've been here. Where have you been? :0) You'll find absolutely no argument from me about Single Payer (check out the old arguments I was in with Scott around the time the ACA was being considered, for example). But your heart attack counter-example is a bit off. If, in fact, we were all worth half a million, could we all afford insurance? Of course we could. The point I was trying to make is that if you are foolish enough to have a health care delivery system that includes private health insurers competing over dollars people intend to spend on health care but which will be re-directed to shareholders instead, then a more equitable distribution of wealth would only aid that system by allowing everyone to participate in it. The abortion issue is one I already spoke of. But, as I said, not all social ills would be cured. However, (and IMO this a HUGE However), more equitable distribution of wealth would mean fewer than twenty-some per cent of our children living in poverty, fewer of us food insecure, fewer of us domicile insecure, more of us with access to health care, etc. But especially after yesterday's special election results, I think those things that I know you and I oppose about our society are not only unopposed by the masses, but are actually supported by the masses. To borrow from a comedian, "There's no fixin' that. That is forever." bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.
Post #418,646 by drook 6/21/17 1:57:20 PM 6/21/17 1:57:20 PM Reply	Which special election is that? -- Drew
Post #418,647 by mmoffitt 6/21/17 3:30:27 PM 6/21/17 3:30:27 PM Reply	GA and SC bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again.

Welcome to IWETHEY!