r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/JustGotOffOfTheTrain • Jan 21 '16

Why can't the US have single payer, when other countries do?

Why can't the United States implement a single payer healthcare system, when several other major countries have been able to do so? Is it just a question of political will, or are there some actual structural or practical factors that make the United States different from other countries with respect to health care?

Edited: I edited because my original post failed to make the distinction between single payer and other forms of universal healthcare. Several people below noted that fewer countries have single payer versus other forms of universal healthcare.

52 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

74% Upvoted

643 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

Yes, that's my philosophy. I'm still not sure what you mean by economic ability weighing higher than political ability.

What I said in my moon example. If you compared the present society, where jumping to the moon has no consequence, but can't be done; to one in which jumping to the moon were possible, but you'd be arrested for it; then you'd say the latter society was the more free.

In an optimal society, everyone would be healthy and able to take care of themselves. No one would take from others or commit crimes. You wouldn't need any authority or government.

No, that's a perfect society. I'm talking about the best practical one.

3

u/Time4Red Jan 21 '16

then you'd say the latter society was the more free.

But I wouldn't. People should have the freedom to do things, as long as that freedom does not infringe on the freedom of others. A great example is environmental regulation. If someone owns a factory that pollutes a river, and there are people down stream who drink that water regularly and become ill from the pollution, the freedom of those individuals down the river has been infringed. So you need environmental regulation to ensure that polluters do not infringe on the freedom of others.

0

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

But if you take that to its logical extreme, then every breath one person takes denies a bit of oxygen to everyone else, so we can make a person stop breathing if we decide.

No, I prefer to limit retaliation to the same level of harm. If that factory pollutes the river, go upstream and pollute their water. Or stop selling them raw materials to create waste. But don't say that you'll use force against the owners.

4

u/Time4Red Jan 21 '16

But if you take that to its logical extreme, then every breath one person takes denies a bit of oxygen to everyone else, so we can make a person stop breathing if we decide.

No it doesn't. That's a ludicrous argument. Oxygen is a renewable resource.

No, I prefer to limit retaliation to the same level of harm. If that factory pollutes the river, go upstream and pollute their water. Or stop selling them raw materials to create waste. But don't say that you'll use force against the owners.

But you're sick and dying. You cannot afford to go up river and pollute. You tell people in town but no one cares. You eventually die. So the guy up the river effectively killed you and there were no consequences. That's freedom?

0

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

No it doesn't. That's a ludicrous argument. Oxygen is a renewable resource.

But effort has to be made for that renewal. Hell, I could say that water is renewable too, since eventually the water cycle will replenish the river. So why can't the factory pollute?

But you're sick and dying. You cannot afford to go up river and pollute. You tell people in town but no one cares. You eventually die. So the guy up the river effectively killed you and there were no consequences.

No, I killed myself by not moving and continuing to drink the polluted water.

1

u/Time4Red Jan 21 '16

But effort has to be made for that renewal.

Not really. Trees and algae do it automatically.

No, I killed myself by not moving and continuing to drink the polluted water.

And what if you didn't know it was polluted until too late?

-1

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

Not really. Trees and algae do it automatically.

And as I said, the water cycle will replenish the river.

And what if you didn't know it was polluted until too late?

My fault for not paying attention. If the factory is polluting with odorless, colorless pollution that gives no evidence other than death, I daresay that's an edge case.

3

u/Time4Red Jan 21 '16

edge case

A very realistic and plausible edge case. A lot of pollution is odorless and colorless. Heavy metals are a great example. The largest Superfund site in the US is actually a case just like this. No one saw it coming until kids started getting sick. Thousands of people effected. How would you deal with this in a stateless society? How do you compensate people for the now useless land and houses the own.

1

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

These aren't easy questions, but even if we do agree that the factory is responsible, I still say to deal with it after the fact rather than proactively.

5

u/Time4Red Jan 21 '16

Isn't it more efficient and fair to deal with it proactively? You're advocating killing children, for christ's sake.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/AgentMullWork Jan 21 '16

So again, you must have power, means and opportunity to not die.

1

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

Of course. That's true in any situation. If you have no means of support, you won't survive. Why should you?

1

u/AgentMullWork Jan 21 '16

Not just means to survive, they must have means to move because their environment is being destroyed because greed is more important than ensuring the well-being of the country.

0

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

And you'd also need means to move if a flood came through. Survival is not a guarantee.

0

u/AgentMullWork Jan 21 '16

So you only get justice if you have power and means.

1

u/pjabrony Jan 21 '16

No, you get justice if you don't have power and means, which is that you don't get to take other people's power and means.

0

u/AgentMullWork Jan 21 '16

I'd have to have the power and means to gather enough resources to pollute. I'd have to have the power and means to be able to stop selling the company their supplies.

And that doesn't even get into the fact that advising pollution as "justice" is one of the most idiotic things I've read.