Society Coronavirus Hangout

[M3J]

I would still frame that mostly (though obviously not entirely) as an access thing. The US definitely has better medicine and technology than pretty much any other country... If you can afford it. That's why people from outside the US fly there to get treated. What countries with functional universal health care do in the end is just provide a decent baseline coverage for everyone but it's not actually better than what you can get from the private sector (if you can afford it).

However, medical workers not being good/caring is not as uncommon as you think, which I believe was part of the problem?


Imagine if we pumped that money into covid aid relief instead

 

[Sanity Check]

Ah, good old fashion pointless mumbo jumbo and fallacies... Setting aside how pointless the words you wrote are, the fact remains that most developed nations have universal health care systems that work. And have been working for decades. The systems aren't by any means perfect but countries like canada, netherlands, UK, germany and so many others have those systems, support them, and their people are largely better of for them. Even trump has praised Australia's system (though him doing that is comically incoherent with his policy lol).

Tax systems are not nearly as complicated in most other places as they are in the US.. Granted the US doesn't have a monopoly on loopholes but in most developed nations at least taxes are just... easy and straightforward.

Trump didn't achieve anything... The economy with him behaved largely the same as when he got it... until it didn't because he managed the pandemic like a saturday morning cartoon villain would (except the saturday morning cartoon villain would do it on purpose I suppose). Presidents have very little effect on the economy in general, their effect is usually limited to very specific things. Obama's effect on the economy began and ended with the bailouts.... Trump's effect on the economy is pretty much his mismanagement of the pandemic. Trump is so comically shameless about his claims at making a great economy (even though it was never as wonderful as he said) that he began claiming how wonderful he made it within the first months of his presidency... Even though it takes months or years to actually determine whether policy worked or not and its effects.

If you had $100 million dollars to burn and wanted to develop a rocket capable of reaching space would you select state run NASA or privately run Space X to develop it.

If you had kids with an option of enrolling them in a state run public school or a privately run school, which would you choose?

If you ordered something online and had the choice of it being delivered through publicly run USPS or privately run UPS/FedEx at the same price, which would you choose?

Its easy to believe universal healthcare "works", without having considered how privately run enterprise is always better than state based alternatives.

American corps make tons of money and use loopholes to avoid paying taxes or reduce their taxes, even back before Trump. Even a non-American would know this.

Tax evasion by banks, large corporations and the wealthy is actually worse outside the united states.

Offshore tax havens are mainly based out of europe thanks to weaker tax loophole laws of nations like switzerland which are the most friendly when it comes to tax avoidance.

I know someone who received healthcare in the US and in UK, and the healthcare here nearly killed her and bankrupted her, while she was in much better hands in UK and didn't pay much or had to worry about that. On top of that, the doctors were better in the UK than in US as well, even if the waiting times weren't the best.

Among the "wealthy" nations, USA's healthcare seems to be among the worst.

If you've ever read european news publications like reuters, you might realize how prone european politicians are towards informing the public on how universal healthcare is "underfunded".

They repeat this as if universal healthcare in those countries is on the verge of failure. Which it is.

That's super specific though, I don't think that's a very common experience. The problem with US healthcare is access, not quality. Technology wise I would think the US is unarguably ahead of most european countries. Of course, the best technology is pointless if you can't afford it even by bankrupting yourself.

One neglected issue with US healthcare is american food being the most unhealthy in the world, leading to endemic obesity and other health issues.

All of which contribute heavily towards american health insurance being strained and more expensive than it would be if americans ate the healthier non gmo foods europeans and others have access to.

 

[kkck]

If you had $100 million dollars to burn and wanted to develop a rocket capable of reaching space would you select state run NASA or privately run Space X to develop it.

If you had kids with an option of enrolling them in a state run public school or a privately run school, which would you choose?

If you ordered something online and had the choice of it being delivered through publicly run USPS or privately run UPS/FedEx at the same price, which would you choose?

Its easy to believe universal healthcare "works", without having considered how privately run enterprise is always better than state based alternatives.

One neglected issue with US healthcare is american food being the most unhealthy in the world, leading to endemic obesity and other health issues.

All of which contribute heavily towards american health insurance being strained and more expensive than it would be if americans ate the healthier non gmo foods europeans and others have access to.

You mean like walking up to them, showing them a rocket design and asking on a quote on how much it'd cost to build it? That doesn't sound like something nasa can do or that close to space x's business model.

Depends which one is better.

I absolutely agree in that private health care is actually better than public health care. BUT only if you can afford it. And again... I am not saying universal health care is perfect, just that it is actually a good system and plenty of countries have had such systems for decades and they work pretty well. As in, you just don't see people in other developed nations being crushed by medical bills. That's strictly a US thing compared to countries it is worth comparing the US to (unless you want to compare US healthcare to Bolivia or Uganda rather than Netherlands or Australia I suppose).

Well, sure, people at the US having lard and starch based diets does contribute to their heath care issues. But... that's not exactly an argument against universal health care. If anything that only means people need more medical care and need more of not getting crushed by medical bills just to be able to get by and function. Things would be better if people at the US were healthier but this alone wouldn't solve the whole host of issues there are around this (for instance, people with underlying conditions which them getting or being born with was entirely outside their control).

 

[M3J]

Tax evasion by banks, large corporations and the wealthy is actually worse outside the united states.

Offshore tax havens are mainly based out of europe thanks to weaker tax loophole laws of nations like switzerland which are the most friendly when it comes to tax avoidance.

Doesn't change the fact that tax evasion still happens in the USA, and it's ironically applauded by the right who oppose "illegal" immigration because they don't pay taxes even when they do.

If you've ever read european news publications like reuters, you might realize how prone european politicians are towards informing the public on how universal healthcare is "underfunded".

They repeat this as if universal healthcare in those countries is on the verge of failure. Which it is.

Back it up with proof that it's on the verge of failure. I'm not sure if it's "underfunded," but universal healthcare is one thing that gets praised the most by people that actually live in these countries, and even some people that visited and had medical emergency, so they must be doing something right.

 

[desin24]

If you had $100 million dollars to burn and wanted to develop a rocket capable of reaching space would you select state run NASA or privately run Space X to develop it.

If you had kids with an option of enrolling them in a state run public school or a privately run school, which would you choose?

If you ordered something online and had the choice of it being delivered through publicly run USPS or privately run UPS/FedEx at the same price, which would you choose?

Its easy to believe universal healthcare "works", without having considered how privately run enterprise is always better than state based alternatives.





Tax evasion by banks, large corporations and the wealthy is actually worse outside the united states.

Offshore tax havens are mainly based out of europe thanks to weaker tax loophole laws of nations like switzerland which are the most friendly when it comes to tax avoidance.





If you've ever read european news publications like reuters, you might realize how prone european politicians are towards informing the public on how universal healthcare is "underfunded".

They repeat this as if universal healthcare in those countries is on the verge of failure. Which it is.





One neglected issue with US healthcare is american food being the most unhealthy in the world, leading to endemic obesity and other health issues.

All of which contribute heavily towards american health insurance being strained and more expensive than it would be if americans ate the healthier non gmo foods europeans and others have access to.

While you bail out Wall Street European countries bail out their Health Care Systems (wonder which one happens more often?). Private healthcare might give you as an individual that can afford it the most utility but overall universal healthcare brings the most utility to the majority of people. Does it have drawbacks and weaknesses? What system on this planet doesn't have any? Just because it has problems does not mean that it is not a better starting point for improvement than a system that bankrupts people with medical bills. Even from a broader economic perspective. The healthier the people in your country, the more they can work and produce goods. If your citizens are scared of calling in sick at work because they will get fired, their health won't just get better because they wait until they absolutely can't suffer the pain anymore.

Private businesses are great at finding solutions because they want to be profitable. Health care is not a profitable business if the health of people is your priority number 1. If you dismiss that, you can make billions and push the country into an opioid crisis.

 

[Sanity Check]

I am not saying universal health care is perfect, just that it is actually a good system and plenty of countries have had such systems for decades and they work pretty well. As in, you just don't see people in other developed nations being crushed by medical bills. That's strictly a US thing

Back it up with proof that it's on the verge of failure. I'm not sure if it's "underfunded," but universal healthcare is one thing that gets praised the most by people that actually live in these countries, and even some people that visited and had medical emergency, so they must be doing something right.

Column: Across the world, universal healthcare is in poor health

Most Europeans don't understand the U.S. healthcare debate. They don't understand it because the opposition to it, and its breadth and depth, runs so counter to the experience of almost every European born since World War Two. It's an experience so deep, so vigorously underpinned...

www.reuters.com

^

Well, sure, people at the US having lard and starch based diets does contribute to their heath care issues. But... that's not exactly an argument against universal health care. If anything that only means people need more medical care and need more of not getting crushed by medical bills just to be able to get by and function. Things would be better if people at the US were healthier but this alone wouldn't solve the whole host of issues there are around this (for instance, people with underlying conditions which them getting or being born with was entirely outside their control).

Unhealthy american diets also make americans more susceptible to corona infection being critical/fatal.

Doesn't change the fact that tax evasion still happens in the USA, and it's ironically applauded by the right who oppose "illegal" immigration because they don't pay taxes even when they do.

CNN narrative. Try finding evidence to support it. You might be surprised by what you find.

While you bail out Wall Street European countries bail out their Health Care Systems (wonder which one happens more often?). Private healthcare might give you as an individual that can afford it the most utility but overall universal healthcare brings the most utility to the majority of people. Does it have drawbacks and weaknesses? What system on this planet doesn't have any? Just because it has problems does not mean that it is not a better starting point for improvement than a system that bankrupts people with medical bills. Even from a broader economic perspective. The healthier the people in your country, the more they can work and produce goods. If your citizens are scared of calling in sick at work because they will get fired, their health won't just get better because they wait until they absolutely can't suffer the pain anymore.

Private businesses are great at finding solutions because they want to be profitable. Health care is not a profitable business if the health of people is your priority number 1. If you dismiss that, you can make billions and push the country into an opioid crisis.

What evidence, statistic or metric supports the idea that universal healthcare "works"?

If someone was skeptical and wanted to investigate claims of universal healthcare being a viable system, where would they start.

 

[kkck]

Column: Across the world, universal healthcare is in poor health

Most Europeans don't understand the U.S. healthcare debate. They don't understand it because the opposition to it, and its breadth and depth, runs so counter to the experience of almost every European born since World War Two. It's an experience so deep, so vigorously underpinned...

www.reuters.com

^


Unhealthy american diets also make americans more susceptible to corona infection being critical/fatal.

That article doesn't really address anything I said.

And... yes? Does that have anything to do with anything?

 

[M3J]

^

Irrelevant. Criticizes Affordable Care Act, but even republicans/staunch Obama haters have said ACA helped them so much. An opinion thinkpiece doesn't really do anything here.

CNN narrative. Try finding evidence to support it. You might be surprised by what you find.

I have found evidence, and not from CNN.

 

[Franckie]

What evidence, statistic or metric supports the idea that universal healthcare "works"?

If someone was skeptical and wanted to investigate claims of universal healthcare being a viable system, where would they start.

Universal healthcare is only possible because of private insurance. Regarding your question, a good place to start is knowing the basics of health insurance, which is not healthcare, but healthcare finance. Here’s a very brief primer on the five basic forms of health insurance:

• Socialist: The government owns the hospitals and directly employs the doctors. Britain’s NHS is the best known example. In the United States, VA healthcare works on this model.
• Single-payer: Doctors and hospitals are mostly private entities, but are paid exclusively by the government. Canada is single-payer, with each province acting as the sole source of payment to doctors and hospitals. In the US, Medicaid and traditional Medicare are single-payer.
• Multi-payer: Same as single-payer, but doctors and hospitals are paid by multiple sources: the government, regulated sickness funds, regulated insurers, etc. There’s a continuum in multi-payer systems, from those that are almost single payer (France) to those where other payers play larger roles (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.). This is the most common form of universal healthcare, and its advantage over single-payer is that it offers a little more flexibility in coverage. In the US, Medicare Advantage is basically multi-payer.
• Subsidized private: People are required to be covered by private insurance, but the government provides subsidies to make coverage affordable. Switzerland uses this system. In the US, this is the Obamacare model.
• Private: In the rich world, this is used only in the United States. Employer healthcare in America is essentially entirely private, although government is involved indirectly via the tax code, which allows employees to receive health coverage free of taxes.

All of these except the last are universal healthcare systems. They differ only in how they deliver services and pay for them, and they can all work well. France, often cited as the best health care system in the world, is technically multi-payer, but really only a hair’s breadth away from single-payer. In practice, this is a semantic distinction for most of us, since there’s usually little difference between universal single-payer and universal multi-payer. Because of that, in the US we tend to refer to all universal systems as single-payer.

None of these systems cover literally every dime of health care coverage. Canada, for example, is single-payer but doesn’t cover all prescription drugs. Different provinces have different rules. In most countries, it’s possible to purchase supplementary insurance to cover the gaps in the national system, something that’s necessary because they all have various co-pays and exceptions.

 

[Sanity Check]

That article doesn't really address anything I said.

And... yes? Does that have anything to do with anything?

Over the years, as american healthcare costs have become more unsustainable, annual mammograms and other standard features have been cut.

100% the same thing happens with universal healthcare. Standard plans cover less. Universal healthcare is just as broken as american healthcare if not moreso.

Irrelevant. Criticizes Affordable Care Act, but even republicans/staunch Obama haters have said ACA helped them so much. An opinion thinkpiece doesn't really do anything here.

The only good thing the ACA did was extending the age someone can be covered by their parent's health insurance from 19 to 26.

What makes the ACA a terrible piece of legislature is it being funded by 20 tax hikes and trillions of dollars in additional federal spending. On top of its regulatory guidelines which make it easier for healthcare providers to form monopolies through decreasing free market competition.

Universal healthcare is only possible because of private insurance. Regarding your question, a good place to start is knowing the basics of health insurance, which is not healthcare, but healthcare finance. Here’s a very brief primer on the five basic forms of health insurance:

• Socialist: The government owns the hospitals and directly employs the doctors. Britain’s NHS is the best known example. In the United States, VA healthcare works on this model.
• Single-payer: Doctors and hospitals are mostly private entities, but are paid exclusively by the government. Canada is single-payer, with each province acting as the sole source of payment to doctors and hospitals. In the US, Medicaid and traditional Medicare are single-payer.
• Multi-payer: Same as single-payer, but doctors and hospitals are paid by multiple sources: the government, regulated sickness funds, regulated insurers, etc. There’s a continuum in multi-payer systems, from those that are almost single payer (France) to those where other payers play larger roles (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.). This is the most common form of universal healthcare, and its advantage over single-payer is that it offers a little more flexibility in coverage. In the US, Medicare Advantage is basically multi-payer.
• Subsidized private: People are required to be covered by private insurance, but the government provides subsidies to make coverage affordable. Switzerland uses this system. In the US, this is the Obamacare model.
• Private: In the rich world, this is used only in the United States. Employer healthcare in America is essentially entirely private, although government is involved indirectly via the tax code, which allows employees to receive health coverage free of taxes.

All of these except the last are universal healthcare systems. They differ only in how they deliver services and pay for them, and they can all work well. France, often cited as the best health care system in the world, is technically multi-payer, but really only a hair’s breadth away from single-payer. In practice, this is a semantic distinction for most of us, since there’s usually little difference between universal single-payer and universal multi-payer. Because of that, in the US we tend to refer to all universal systems as single-payer.

None of these systems cover literally every dime of health care coverage. Canada, for example, is single-payer but doesn’t cover all prescription drugs. Different provinces have different rules. In most countries, it’s possible to purchase supplementary insurance to cover the gaps in the national system, something that’s necessary because they all have various co-pays and exceptions.

Consider medicare for all in the united states which proposes to abolish private health insurance and replace it with more of a state run system.

 

[M3J]

The only good thing the ACA did was extending the age someone can be covered by their parent's health insurance from 19 to 26.

What makes the ACA a terrible piece of legislature is it being funded by 20 tax hikes and trillions of dollars in additional federal spending. On top of its regulatory guidelines which make it easier for healthcare providers to form monopolies through decreasing free market competition.

I mean, facts and stats say ACA resulted in far more people being covered and being able to afford healthcare, but if you wanna ignore that...

That's not a bad thing. ACA helps insure people and allows them to more freely seek medical care rather than die slowly because they can't afford to go to the hospital or get medicine. The tax hikes and trillions of dollars in spending are not wasted here, unless it goes to pocket insurers and hospitals' pockets and not help people.

Both sides to this though. Many have said ACA has made it easier for people to afford insurance, while many others have said it made their doctors out of network or made some medicine inaccessible. It'd be great if republicans actually tried to fix it instead of repealing the Act just to screw over people so the wealthy and corporations can keep more money.

 

[Franckie]

Consider medicare for all in the united states which proposes to abolish private health insurance and replace it with more of a state run system.

It's impossible for "Medicare-for-all" to abolish private insurance. What it does ban is any private health coverage that duplicates the coverage offered by the government. For example, if Sanders Medicare-for-all system covered hospital stays but not dental work, then private insurers would still be free to offer plans that cover dental needs. In fact, Medicare already bans any private insurers from offering the same coverage it offers. Canada's single-payer system does this too.

Why ban duplicative coverage? Because, while the government covers everyone (That's the point!), private insurers can limit their customer pool by charging high premiums. Which could also allow them to reimburse health-care providers at a higher rate than the government. If your doctor accepts both your government coverage and another patient's private coverage, they might privilege the other patient or move them to the front of the line because their coverage gives a more generous reimbursement. It's basically a question of how high a priority you put on fairness in your health-care system. And different countries with single-payer systems have decided this issue differently.

The point is, there's a perfectly logical reason for the ban, and it's hardly unusual. More to the point, the policy still allows for supplemental private coverage—plans that cover the things the government plan doesn't.

 

[Sanity Check]

Why ban duplicative coverage?

Imagine that free market competition between AMD and intel led to decades of significant industry advancement and excellent cost per value of products in chpiset markets.

One bright day the government comes along and says they're banning "duplicate markets" between intel and AMD to limit competition in markets. What would the end result be?

Likewise what will the natural end result of reducing competition in healthcare markets by banning "duplicate markets" be?

The massive multi trillion dollar pricetag of medicare for all alone should tell you that what they're planning is far more audacious and bold than you think.

 

[xi0]

Imagine that free market competition between AMD and intel led to decades of significant industry advancement and excellent cost per value of products in chpiset markets.

One bright day the government comes along and says they're banning "duplicate markets" between intel and AMD to limit competition in markets. What would the end result be?

Healthcare isn't consumer electronics

 

[Newkerzy]

Universal healthcare is only possible because of private insurance. Regarding your question, a good place to start is knowing the basics of health insurance, which is not healthcare, but healthcare finance. Here’s a very brief primer on the five basic forms of health insurance:

• Socialist: The government owns the hospitals and directly employs the doctors. Britain’s NHS is the best known example. In the United States, VA healthcare works on this model.
• Single-payer: Doctors and hospitals are mostly private entities, but are paid exclusively by the government. Canada is single-payer, with each province acting as the sole source of payment to doctors and hospitals. In the US, Medicaid and traditional Medicare are single-payer.
• Multi-payer: Same as single-payer, but doctors and hospitals are paid by multiple sources: the government, regulated sickness funds, regulated insurers, etc. There’s a continuum in multi-payer systems, from those that are almost single payer (France) to those where other payers play larger roles (Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.). This is the most common form of universal healthcare, and its advantage over single-payer is that it offers a little more flexibility in coverage. In the US, Medicare Advantage is basically multi-payer.
• Subsidized private: People are required to be covered by private insurance, but the government provides subsidies to make coverage affordable. Switzerland uses this system. In the US, this is the Obamacare model.
• Private: In the rich world, this is used only in the United States. Employer healthcare in America is essentially entirely private, although government is involved indirectly via the tax code, which allows employees to receive health coverage free of taxes.

All of these except the last are universal healthcare systems. They differ only in how they deliver services and pay for them, and they can all work well. France, often cited as the best health care system in the world, is technically multi-payer, but really only a hair’s breadth away from single-payer. In practice, this is a semantic distinction for most of us, since there’s usually little difference between universal single-payer and universal multi-payer. Because of that, in the US we tend to refer to all universal systems as single-payer.

None of these systems cover literally every dime of health care coverage. Canada, for example, is single-payer but doesn’t cover all prescription drugs. Different provinces have different rules. In most countries, it’s possible to purchase supplementary insurance to cover the gaps in the national system, something that’s necessary because they all have various co-pays and exceptions.

Thanks for the breakdown. I’ve been wanting to understand the healthcare issue in the US sometime, and this is probably the easiest explanation to understand. Do you have an official reference to cite from though? I might need it someday. If you can, I’d like it to be as easy to digest as yours.

 

[Franckie]

Imagine that free market competition between AMD and intel led to decades of significant industry advancement and excellent cost per value of products in chpiset markets.

One bright day the government comes along and says they're banning "duplicate markets" between intel and AMD to limit competition in markets. What would the end result be?

Likewise what will the natural end result of reducing competition in healthcare markets by banning "duplicate markets" be?

The massive multi trillion dollar pricetag of medicare for all alone should tell you that what they're planning is far more audacious and bold than you think.

The medical system is exclusively designed to care for people who are in little to no position to advocate for themselves. When you are in the middle of a heart attack, for example, you do not have the time to shop for an ambulance to take you to the hospital. This leaves people vulnerable to price gouging and rent seeking that is rampant within the medical industry.

FYI: Health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Toyota and didn't bother to buy car insurance, society feels no obligation to repair his car. But healthcare is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he squandered his money on stupid things, we'll be angry with him, but we still won't deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of healthcare.

Thanks for the breakdown. I’ve been wanting to understand the healthcare issue in the US sometime, and this is probably the easiest explanation to understand. Do you have an official reference to cite from though? I might need it someday. If you can, I’d like it to be as easy to digest as yours.

I recommend the following two links:

• Single-Payer, Multiple-Payer, and State-Based Financing of Health Care: Introduction to the Special Section
• A Conservative Case for the Welfare State

If you deem this insufficient, let me know and I can forward you additional information.

 

[Sanity Check]

The medical system is exclusively designed to care for people who are in little to no position to advocate for themselves. When you are in the middle of a heart attack, for example, you do not have the time to shop for an ambulance to take you to the hospital. This leaves people vulnerable to price gouging and rent seeking that is rampant within the medical industry.

FYI: Health insurance is not like other forms of insurance protection. If a young man wrecks his Toyota and didn't bother to buy car insurance, society feels no obligation to repair his car. But healthcare is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance. If we find that he squandered his money on stupid things, we'll be angry with him, but we still won't deny him services - even if that means more prudent citizens end up paying the tab. Society does feel a moral obligation to insure that its citizens do not suffer from the unavailability of healthcare.

What stands out to me the most about this debate.

Every word you typed there could be a complete lie.

And 99.9% of people wouldn't realize it.

How do we fix healthcare or any issue faced by society when the majority of people are too uninformed and uneducated to comprehend exactly how things are broken.

 

[kkck]

What stands out to me the most about this debate.

Every word you typed there could be a complete lie.

And 99.9% of people wouldn't realize it.

I feel compelled to point out that there is no situation, written or spoken, where these words ordered into these sentences are ever useful to a conversation or mean anything. As in, if you actually ever said this to anyone the only thing you'd ever get is a bunch of confused stares. Except I suppose in some weird circles of exceptionally unhinged and insane people who are so far removed from reality that they believe that the world is controlled by satanic pedophile cannibals and the bar is so insultingly low that this passes are profound or useful.

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 5, 2020, Original Post Date: Sep 5, 2020 ---

To add to that... you can just google stuff people say and find out if its true or not. In most cases it will take literally no time whatsoever. To give you an example of how this works... Rather than incoherently rambling about how what a stranger on the internet is saying might be a lie, you could have spent 3 minutes reading about the different types of health care provided by different governments work and point out exactly what was inaccurate about what said stranger on the internet said. instead you wasted the fraction of a calorie it takes to to moves your fingers to write whatever the hell that post is supposed to be.

 

[Franckie]

What stands out to me the most about this debate.

Every word you typed there could be a complete lie.

And 99.9% of people wouldn't realize it.

I like the fact that you appear to be having doubts. If true, then that's a good sign. It means you're persuadable.

If you have additional questions, let me know and I'll take the time to answer them as best as I can.

How do we fix healthcare or any issue faced by society when the majority of people are too uninformed and uneducated to comprehend exactly how things are broken.

Honestly, I have no idea. The solutions are simple; it's getting from Point A to Point C that is the Herculean task. There's simply no appetite for serious reform in the US. There is no form of universal healthcare that GOP elites will accept, and while Democratic elites are supportive of universal healthcare, they are not supportive of policies such as the tax hikes they'd have to implement on their base to keep escalating costs under control.

As for educating people, that requires working with people in a 1on1 situation. You also have to be familiar with the issue by reading about it from across the political spectrum. Examples:

• The liberal case for universal healthcare
• The conservative case for universal healthcare
• The libertarian case for universal healthcare

You see, all beings want to make sense of their reality. But none of them wish to think too deeply . They gravitate toward words that confirm their existing suspicions. If they come across a message that violates their values, they lash out at you. Libertarians, conservatives, and liberals think very differently compared to each other. Liberals value fairness, protection from harm, and empathy more than conservatives; conservatives, on the other hand, tend to more deeply value loyalty, respect for authority, and purity. Finally, libertarians value loyalty and especially freedom.

You have to educate people by utilizing their values, not yours. But it's not easy to do. Even I still have a long way to go before I can state I'm a pro at educating people on this subject.

 

[M3J]

I like the fact that you appear to be having doubts. If true, then that's a good sign. It means you're persuadable.

Honestly, I don't think he's having any doubt, he's just accusing you of lying and calling others gullible by saying they wouldn't realize it, even though Google exists.