What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[CountDeMoney]

That's make-believe money.

[jimmy olsen]

Treating them as equivalents is patently false and Warren would be incredibly inconsistent if she gave the same speech in either situation.

They are equivalents in that PEOPLE DIE.

Leave 18 million uninsured.  PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Leave 10,000 uninsured.  PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Roll back coverage for 30 million currently insured.  PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Well yes, but reducing the number of people dieing who didn't have to is to be praised, and increasing it is to be denounced. That's simple logic. 

Of course, it is well within the country's ability to insure everyone, and for lower cost than the current system, and no one would die who didn't need to. Sadly, that seems to be politically impossible.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course, it is well within the country's ability to insure everyone, and for lower cost than the current system, and no one would die who didn't need to. Sadly, that seems to be politically impossible.

[Tonitrus]

We already have a socialized, single-payer medical system in place.

Just expand Medicare to include everybody.

[jimmy olsen]

Of course, it is well within the country's ability to insure everyone, and for lower cost than the current system, and no one would die who didn't need to. Sadly, that seems to be politically impossible.

All the other countries on this list have universal health care.

[Tonitrus]

Presuming those are just a raw figures of dollars spent...

What would make those figures a bit more telling, is, compared to the others, how much of that is profits going to pharma companies, health insurance companies, etc?   As compared to those countries where "profit" is not even a concept/factor in health spending.

[CountDeMoney]

All the other countries on this list have universal health care.

Thank you.

[dps]

We already have a socialized, single-payer medical system in place.

Just expand Medicare to include everybody.

Medicare doesn't cover everything. 

[Admiral Yi]

Well yes, but reducing the number of people dieing who didn't have to is to be praised, and increasing it is to be denounced. That's simple logic. 

Really?  Are you in favor of increasing spending on cancer research to $6 trillion a year?

But once again this is beside the point.  You want to turn this debate into one over the Republican attempt to roll back Obamacare.  That is not what I have been arguing.  I've been arguing two things.

1) Warren's speech is goofy. 

2) Someone can think Warren's speech is goofy and not necessarily think "it's all a big joke."

[Valmy]

Warren's speech is the sort of emotional appeal that I really get tired of in politics, even when the appeal is being made in a cause I support. There are real world facts that support a single payer system.

That bullshit unconstitutional anti-Illegal Immigrant bills the House passed recently are a good example of how it goes bad when people actually make laws based on this kind of nonsense. Notice one was even named after a San Franciscan woman who was killed by an immigrant.

[viper37]

Of course, it is well within the country's ability to insure everyone, and for lower cost than the current system,

I'm not too sure about that.  Not in the short to mid term anyway.

If people don't die, that is because they will receive regular healthchecks, and as Valmy indicated, that is quite costly.

Unless you arbitrarily cut the doctor's pay and limit the fees they can charge for exams, I don't see it happenning.

Next, if they are covered, they will undergo just one more surgery, one more treatment that will push death a few days later.  Got terminal cancer but there's not 200k$ procedure that has one in a billion chance of curing you or at least give you six more months?  If it's free, why not?  If you have to pay 5000$ for it, you start thinking: is it really worth it? At 10k$, you think: nah, it ain't, and you let it go.

Such is the nature of insurance: make something covered, people will claim insurance for it.

Of course, the system can be made more efficient, and bulk purchasing could help save some costs, but I just don't see the US Federal government suddenly deciding for everything healthcare related in every States.  That's up to the States themselves to decide.

And there would be need to be pro-active health measures againsts the causes of increase medical costs, amongst others, bad eating habits, lack of physical exercise, freely accessible guns for anyone with at least one hand no matter the mental state, stigma on mental illness, pollution of water and air, unrestricted use of chemical agents in agriculture, etc, etc.

If none of these changes, you will never get any sensible reduction in prices of health care since the risks still exists.

[jimmy olsen]

Well yes, but reducing the number of people dieing who didn't have to is to be praised, and increasing it is to be denounced. That's simple logic. 

Really?  Are you in favor of increasing spending on cancer research to $6 trillion a year?

Did I say you had to save everyone who is sick to be praised?

I merely said reducing the number of people dying who didn't have to is to be praised.

That means reducing the number of people whom our society could choose to save but doesn't.

Obviously, this only covers those we could save at our current level of economic and technological development. I'm not demanding a trillion dollar crash program Civilization like Wonder of the World to cure cancer.

[Admiral Yi]

Did I say you had to save everyone who is sick to be praised?

No, you said save one and you get praise.  Then the one after that gets praise.  And the one after that.  Times infinity.

[garbon]

I don't see why one shouldn't get praise for each life saved.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't see why one shouldn't get praise for each life saved.

Because there are diminishing returns, resources are finite, and demand is infinite.