jesus_of_suburbia wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:For example: Does anyone really think medical costs will be realistically constrained in the US if the end consumer of medical care doesn't have some meaningful stake in what their care costs? I don't.
How the fuck can you say this when the US currently spends more money per person with worse outcomes than other countries with socialized medicine?
OK, so now you just go full blown irrational anger. Disappointing.
Did I say ONE WORD about socialized medicine? No.
If you take a (calm, rational) look at medical costs in many countries, they tend to be rising rapidly. In the vast majority of systems, people receiving care have little economic stake in what that care costs.
So all I'm implying is that in ANY system, people having some economic stake would help constrain costs, in my opinion.
...
I'd actually prefer a coherent socialized system for the US like Medicare for All, vs. the mess we've had for a long time now, including the Obamacare kludge. But along with that, I'd prefer some moderate level of deductibles for the little things. That would help constrain prices, since people would do things like shop around more for an MRI if they had to pay a meaningful percentage of the MRI's price.
...
So more spewing of anger, or are you willing to concede that just maybe I have a point, even if meaningful deductibles for small things means medicine isn't 100% paid for by "the system"?