Are Americans here on PF starting a debate about universal healthcare? — ssu

No. The question was about responsibility. Wendy Brown analyzes Neoliberalism from that angle.

I've just been interested in Neoliberalism for a while now — frank

My son, we are prone to find evil interesting, and our God-given curiosity may want to investigate it. Beware of Darkness, though. It is seductive and offers the gaping gates of Neoliberal Hell masqueraded as the high road to salvation. Only peer into the dark if you must, but do not step so little as a nanometer past those hideous gates, lest you be lost forever.

After reading the evil book, sprinkle yourself with holy water from the left side of the sacred spring of collectivism. Say 10 Hail Marx, and burn the paper effigy of Margaret Thatcher announcing that there is no such thing of society.

Go and sin no more.

Neoliberalism is an imprecise term. It interests me that Hayek, the founding thinker of neoliberalism was no fan of big corporations, oligopolies or big banks. He liked a free market but he hated what people call crony capitalism (The Constitution of Liberty and Law, Legislation and Liberty) . He would have detested what passes for neo-liberalism today and, as I was taught in economics, Hayek believed the corporations should be bound by the same rules and moral expectations as individuals.

Not sure this gives us much more, but it's worth noting.

He said "pretty much" (not "every single one"), and if the best counter you can find is China, you're pretty much conceding the point. Here's a list of countries with universal/singlepayer/government-provided health care. Its.. pretty long. But sure, China's not on it- what a compelling argument.

Also probably worth noting that basically all comparable countries to the US have better health outcomes with universal/public health care than the US does with its private system. Better outcomes, with a lower price tag, and these national programs tend to be wildly popular.

So this one's not even a fair fight; universal healthcare is a no-brainer. Basically the only downside is that the CEOs of those pharmaceutical and health insurance companies won't make quite as many millions of dollars... the other 99.99% of the population is better off in basically every way. Doesn't get much more open and shut than that.

Why is the state good? You could say states are natural and that health and goodness are equivalent. Healthy pine trees are good. Healthy states are good — frank

Well, you could say that the state is good because it maintains cohesion in society, it provides infrastructure and services, it defends society against external and internal enemies, etc.

The state may be bad if it extracts too much taxes or interferes with civil liberties, but you could say that the average first-world state is probably sort of good on the whole.

He said "pretty much" (not "every single one"), and if the best counter you can find is China, you're pretty much conceding the point. Here's a list of countries with universal/singlepayer/government-provided health care. Its.. pretty long. But sure, China's not on it- what a compelling argument. — Seppo

Is that everyone does it a good argument for doing it? Could it be that everyone is eating tide pods?

Also probably worth noting that basically all comparable countries to the US have better health outcomes with universal/public health care than the US does with its private system. Better outcomes, with a lower price tag, and these national programs tend to be wildly popular. — Seppo

That's great. The world has left the US in the dust with its only remaining ally: Sierra Leone, the only friend with a higher homicide rate. Why would a person without an America complex care?

So this one's not even a fair fight; universal healthcare is a no-brainer. — Seppo

Oh good. So we don't have to think through issues of responsibility at all. Wonderful. Thanks.

My son, we are prone to find evil interesting, and our God-given curiosity may want to investigate it. Beware of Darkness, — Bitter Crank

:cool: No worries. I remain a steadfast defender of the common man even tho up close and personal, he's actually pretty offensive.

Well, you could say that the state is good because it maintains cohesion in society, it provides infrastructure and services, it defends society against external and internal enemies, etc. — Apollodorus

Except for the defense part, all those things can be done by religion, right?

the common man even tho up close and personal, he's actually pretty offensive. — frank

King: "The people are revolting!"

Queen: "Yes, they certainly are."

Except for the defense part, all those things can be done by religion, right? — frank

Is religion good at maintaining social cohesion? Infrastructure? Services?

Only a cautious "Perhaps" applied to the pre-Reformation church, when it had a monopoly. Where it didn't have a monopoly (post-Reformation) it was the subject of quite a bit of rancor. The American colonies had good cohesion when only one sect had a monopoly -- like the Puritans, the Anglicans, or the Quakers. Otherwise, they weren't producing all that much cohesion.

That said, I think "faith", "regular and sincere divine worship", a common narrative of origin and salvation, and so forth can be a healthy element of society. But the State does a better job of providing social cohesion which over-arches sectarian and partisan interests (at least, most of th time).

Because the State is the custodian of the law and not salvation, it can ignore behavior which offends priests and theologian. The church may shoehorn its morality into the law (regarding divorce, abortion, homosexuality, etc.) and once the State gets rid of that influence (as it has over the last century) law becomes tolerant of what the church can not stand.

Of course, Frank, things can go the other way. The Nazi State generated a degree of social cohesion, and where it did not, it forced cohesion, compliance, and cooperation. Similarly, the Soviet State achieved cohesion, but seems to have required a very heavy hand to get and keep it. There are a number of states which perform miserably on just about any measure. Western Europe, North America, Japan, and some other states have, it seems to me, done a pretty good job.

Not in itself, but the fact that all our peers are doing means it should be considered.

The real argument for it, is the fact that it delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. The argument for private healthcare is... that it allows a tiny portion of the population to get excessively rich, at the expense of everyone else. So it really is a no-brainer; not every issue admits of equally compelling arguments or equally valid opinions for and against, this one is really open and shut- wanting to pay more for worse outcomes is ridiculous and irrational.

But the State does a better job of providing social cohesion which over-arches sectarian and partisan interests (at least, most of th time). — Bitter Crank

I agree. Where there is competition between sects, the state is best positioned to create a stable peace.

Western Europe, North America, Japan, and some other states have, it seems to me, done a pretty good job. — Bitter Crank

For the last few decades, yes, Western Europe hasn't exploded into a massive bloodbath.

Not in itself, but the fact that all our peers are doing means it should be considered. — Seppo

Ok. There are tide pods at your grocery store. Go take a long consideration around eating one because everyone, well not everyone, and not even most of everyone, actually a vigorous minority ate them. :up:

The real argument for it, is the fact that it delivers better outcomes at a lower cost. — Seppo

So a hefty portion of American healthcare is actually publicly funded. Old people get sick more often, and their costs are covered by Medicare. Pregnant women and babies are covered by Medicaid (at 100%). The average American hospital would go under without Medicare, which is why they take scrutiny by CMS very seriously.

So the relatively crappy outcomes are not a result of a lack of public funding. They actually don't know why it is.

No. The question was about responsibility. — frank

Isn't that the issue?

Isn't that the issue? — ssu

Yes, as opposed to the issue being what's wrong with the USA.

Yes, as opposed to the issue being what's wrong with the USA. — frank

I think that in every country it is an issue just where to draw the line with personal responsibility and where public funding is used. Naturally not all services are paid / subsidized by the government. I assume that primary first aid to bee free is quite universal.

What should the state be responsible for? And why? — frank

Here's a way to at least get some evidence for a conclusion. Look at the nations of the world that scores the highest on well-being and happiness. If we want to establish what the state should provide and what not to provide, the voice of the people should be the deciding factor. You could argue that we must first answer the question of purpose, meaning, we must decide what the purpose of a nation and its people is. If it's a nation conducting large-scale warfare for survival, then the needs and wants change drastically. But if we are asking the question for a nation in peacetime where the aim and goal are for the people to live life in a good condition for themselves and with as little pain and suffering as possible. In essence, if the people are happy and feel like their needs and their wants get realized, that is key to answer the question.

So looking at the nations that score the highest on this list, you can deduce what key features these societies have in order to reach this high level of satisfaction among their citizens.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/best-countries-to-live-in

This is from a website commenting on how wealthy nonprofits are like they don't have to plan for the future. Their CEOs do make insane salaries, tho. — frank

Well, it's not just the CEO's that have good salaries. Overall, the US health care sector enjoys good salaries...which basically makes it so expensive. (duh!)

How do you see that relating to the OP?

It all looked kind of reddish purple.

It all looked kind of reddish purple. — frank

Ok, making it easier for those who won't read all data.

• Norway
• Switzerland
• Australia
• Ireland
• Germany
• Iceland
• Sweden
• Hong Kong
• Singapore
• The Netherlands

So, looking at the commonalities between these nations should give hints as to what the role of the state is and what the relation between the people and state should be.

How do you see that relating to the OP? — frank

Don't you see the link? I think it's obvious.

Cooper examines and links a series of policy domains in which the traditional family was explicitly adduced to substitute for multiple aspects of the social state. In her telling, market privatization of social security, health care, and higher education involved “responsibilizing” individual men, rather than the state, for teen pregnancies, parents, rather than the state, for the costs of higher education, and families, rather than the state, for the provision of every kind of care for dependents —children, disabled, the elderly.". — frank

If you have market privatization of health care, it is very likely that the services of doctors salaries are higher.

Think about it.

If you are ill and can die if you don't get treatment, then I guess you have a real incentive to put down some serious money to get good treatment. If you have money, that is. And usually people do have that when it's their own life (or their health insurance is able to afford it). You can always sell the house and live more modestly.

Yep. And the fact that universal programs outperform our own system at a lower price tag is why its such a no-brainer. Like I said, the only real argument against a universal/singlepayer system is that those CEOs won't make quite so many millions of dollars as they can in a privatized system. For the other 99.99%, its better in virtually every way that matters.

Which is, of course, why every other 1st world nation already has one, and why a majority of the American population wants one here too.

In the Netherlands one is obliged to pay health insurance every month. I pay 125 euros. On top I have to pay 380 euros own risk! That last I really dont understand. The obliged part I just dont understand. Is the state caring for me or the insurance companies? I dont (if I want) get refunded a visit to many alternative ways of health care, even if more effective.

Why not just make it tax-funded like in Sweden? I pay like 20 euros every time I go to the doctor and every time I need something from some hospital. But if it goes over 100 euros we all get a free pass for the remainder of the year. Essentially, everything is paid through taxes, but to keep people from not overcrowding hospitals with irrelevant issues, the minimal fee keeps things going even better while addressing that problem.

All in all, my stance is that any basic needs of the people should be issued by the government. Food, shelter, medical care, education, security, and public transportation should be provided by the government through taxes. If you study the domino effect of this then the general well-being of society as a whole goes through the roof. Everyone has the chance to bounce back from bad times in their lives. Not even Sweden has enough of what I'm talking about. We still have a lot of problems with helping people with mental health problems and we have a problem with criminals and young people shooting each other up and creating unrest. All of that is due to the inabilities to plan integration properly. But all in all, I'm quite happy with how Sweden handles the well-being of the people. It's one of the reasons it's high on that list. We have minimal differences between the different Nordic countries in this regard and Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark all rank high for being so geographically close to each other.

But I think more could be included in what the state covers. The cocktail effect makes it close to impossible for large groups to fall into a vicious circle that's impossible to recover from. Of course, the general attitude of the people towards each other is also important, but when money isn't a problem to help someone in need, it gets a hell of a lot easier.

Just think of how many plots in US television and films start out with the main problem being that the main character can't pay for medical bills. It's like no one even questions the stupidity of such a system.

If you have market privatization of health care, it is very likely that the services of doctors salaries are higher. — ssu

Yes. It's not really apples to apples tho. A fair portion of what a doctor does in the UK is done by nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician's assistants in the US. If you assess by service rather than provider, I think you'd get closer to a valuable figure.

Research shows that a lot of the money in American healthcare is actually going to all the bureaucracy involved in funding, which is another reason to consider government control. It would allow those funds to go to preventative care which would mean Americans might not be so sick when they get to a doctor and so outcomes would improve.

Why all you people think Americans don't see the problems with there own country is beyond me. It's just one case study tho. Why are you trying to extrapolate from one data point?

The cocktail effect makes it close to impossible for large groups to fall into a vicious circle that's impossible to recover from — Christoffer

Seems well arranged in Sweden! I wished it was here like that! Whats the cocktail effect?

Once upon a time and a long time ago, our military used to do military things. The private sector was relegated to turning out widgets and making huge profits off of Uncle Sugar's tit. Now, thanks to Dick Cheney and his ilk, we have contracted out a lot. So, instead of Private Snuffy burning shit barrels as part of punishment for being a rebel who questioned authority, he lays on his bunk, listening to his iPod, and we pay Haliburton metric shit tons of money to do it for him.

We spend even more, of our nickel, training up Tier One Operators to be the best soldiers the world has ever known, and then the private sector lures them away with our big bucks to run security for their executives.

And our private contractors receive a huge chunk to train up Afghan forces who cut and run.

The point here is, while gubmn't can indeed be wasteful, such waste usually comes from those old-school private sector MIC types who have cost over-runs and whatnot on their widget production. But when we actually turn the job of using the widgets over to them, then the fleecing really begins. The private sector is no great panacea when it comes to serving the people. They know gubmn't is not capable of overseeing them, and holding their feet to the fire, and to the contracts; and they have congressmen and women to make sure they don't.

Health care is the same. The people are getting fucked, coming and going.

The private sector could never have won any war we have won; nor should they be given such powerful tools as the military has. Some jobs are just best performed by Private Snuffy and the Tier One Operators, and every one in uniform in between. Same with health care and other essential services. The private sector simply lacks the wisdom, intelligence, patriotism, selflessness and incentive to do right by the people. That's why they should not be allowed to own politicians the way they do.

But alas, just like NASA: they did all the heavy lifting and open the doors. But fifty years from now they will be forgotten and Bezos and Musk, et al, will be hailed as the entrepreneurs, rugged individualists, risk-taking, bootstrapping men who led us into the new frontier, boldly going where no man (well, no private sector man) has ever gone before! Just like the pioneers who opened the west, all with the sweat of their own brow (forget the U.S. Calvary, land give-aways, etc.)!

Can the private sector produce widgets? Yes. But they should not be endowed with the power to use those widgets in furtherance of the public good. Likewise healthcare. (Don't get me started on publicly funded Universities and the tech and medicine that come out of those.)

The private sector needs to be harnessed, like a fucking horse, and put to work, by the people, for the people. It's a free country, they don't have to work if they don't want to. But if they want oats and grain and a stable, that's part of the deal. Work you little bitches! Or go away and let in a horse that's ready for the harness.

End rant.

It is unthinkable that health care systems aren't totally free for everyone. At least the basic health care.
For me, It's one of greatest disgraces for humanity nowadays that with all that progress that has be done, not to open health care to every single person for free. Someone to be abandoned when his Life is at risk, cause of Money! It's another classic example of how humanity values Money over Life.

That someday would have to change. And for me the only way as I see it for health care to be free is through State's responsibility. I cant imagine how "free" and "private" could work together.

:100: