In the midst of all this partisan debate about what will work best, I keep feeling like nothing can sustain a system that allows so much abuse.
In western countries, those things are "free" because we collectively pay for them. I can't imagine having to pay for child birth. It's just something we are collectively responsible for, because we try to provide basic human rights to everyone.
Same for daycare. As a parent, finding a daycare centre that met basic health standards was one of the most stressful parts of becoming a parent. When the government started subsidizing non-profit daycare, it solved so many problems and made me much more productive at work.
Are you implying that somewhere else, these things are free without someone paying for them?
> I can't imagine having to pay for child birth.
Really? Should raising a child be free then too? Should everything be "free"? How does that work?
Except for rare circumstances, when someone gets pregnant, they choose to get pregnant. It may not be the desired outcome, but if you choose to play with fire, you're just ignorant if you think you can't get burned. It's a proactive choice. So if you don't have the means to deliver the baby (and subsequently raise the child in a positive environment), why did you choose to get pregnant and have the child? Why should everyone else be on the hook for your mistake? Regardless of who pays, children are expensive. Should we really reward people (and yes, that's what the system currently does) who want to make irresponsible decisions and have children they can't afford (in both time and money)?
Perhaps you're really pushing for full socialism? Sounds great! How's that working out in Venezuela?
> If I have to fight all the time for basic things, then yes, I'll start cheating the system
Are you "fighting" to pay your taxes? Are you "fighting" to pay your insurance premiums? We're not talking about a struggle to find the best daycare for your kid; we're talking about paying into a system (whether through the government or an insurance provider) that redistributes wealth from those that can pay to those who "can't", but it only works when people don't abuse the system. And if you have the ability to work, you should be contributing rather than "cheating the system". Otherwise, you're just trying to justify getting something for nothing.
Free, no, but the rest of the developed world has universal coverage and healthcare that costs half what it does in the US per capita, with similar outcomes.
Someone has to pay, yes. The US's way of paying is just horrendously complex, expensive, and inefficient.
Why should every country have the same solution to healthcare? The US was formed as a democracy when 'the rest of the world' was run by monarchs. Healthcare is still a rivalrous good, and if we don't limit it by who can afford it, we will limit by some other ambiguous term like 'need.' My friend's grandma (80 yrs old) just had to fly to the US from Paris to have a surgery for which the French system deemed her ineligible (she was too old).
Single-payer systems have a variety of implementations - Australia has a vibrant private insurance industry alongside their public system, whereas Canada forbids it.
It's quite clear that the US healthcare variant simply isn't working and isn't sustainable. I pay more for my family's health insurance ($2,000/month) than I pay for my mortgage, and it goes up 10-20% every year (both pre-ACA and post-ACA).
We're well past the point of saying "well, that experiment didn't work, what's everyone else doing that works?"
Our current path is demonstrably not prudent, with a good dozen or more examples of what appear to be prudent approaches to draw from.
No, but I know people who pay for insurance and still have a $4k co-pay for childbirth.
> but it only works when people don't abuse the system.
It used to be that we paid insurance, and were covered. Now it's we pay insurance, and also pay a larger portion of care than we are used to.
In this case, both problems are essentially the fault of the government. Choice (a) only happens in a system (like we currently have in the US) where the government imposes artificial limits on competition in the healthcare industry. Choice (b) currently happens because the government mandates that healthcare providers give care to non-paying patients, in addition to the government-sponsored entitlement programs (which often pay providers far less than the actual costs require).
[1] If it's just price gouging, then (in a free market) there would be a huge incentive for someone else to enter the market with lower prices; they'd be able to sweep the market overnight - at least until someone else came along to undercut their prices, and we'd all benefit from paying something closer to actual costs. But in the artificially regulated healthcare system of the US, unfortunately this doesn't happen.
We haven't had a deregulated healthcare industry/market in the United States for a very long time (in fact, "healthcare" as we know it never existed in the US without massive regulation). I'm not sure anyone can make that claim based on real evidence, at least not in the US.
I think you meant "free market", not "deregulated"? and where supporters of free markets will always push for more deregulation because they'll blame whatever little regulation is in place in order to support their utopia. Heard that before.. all watched over by machines of loving grace.
But your political influence is much greater with money
The popular vote is for welfare clones
I think I added to the conversation and this is a also a reality I live in. Kickback and relax, emphasis on kickback, is way more effective in creating favorable political situations for me and everyone I know, than a popular vote. Some jurisdictions formalize it with synonyms, others don't. Do I have to write massive disclaimers and sources for accepted reality just to avoid being shadowbanned?
When my wife was about to deliver our first child, she mentioned to her students how the hospital bills can be expensive. Her students were absolutely dumbfounded that anyone would actually pay out-of-pocket (with or without insurance) for a baby delivery. They almost couldn't comprehend the idea that anyone other than the government actually pays for this stuff. Many of those same students came from large families where a single mother literally chose to have many children (with random fathers) in order to qualify for more state-funded entitlements, and unfortunately, that whole mindset evidently perpetuates itself through the generations as kids grow up and expect to repeat the process.
And of course, their votes count the same as my vote.