5 ms·

Seems like at least two of those could be removed by universal healthcare.

• gruez 6y ago
  I presume you're talking about pharmacy profit and insurance company profit. "universal healthcare" just means everyone's covered. It doesn't mean everything's owned & operated by the government. That means there can still be private insurance companies and pharmacies, both making a profit.
  • Latty 6y ago
    I would assume they are referring to most of the current suggestions for universal healthcare in the US, which follow a centralised model where a central body could collectively negotiate for drug prices (as the NHS does here in the UK, very effectively).
    • gruez 6y ago
      >which follow a centralised model where a central body could collectively negotiate for drug prices That's orthogonal to universal healthcare or even a single payer system. There's nothing preventing you from having the whole country be represented collectively, but still have private insurers, like in germany. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/how-drug-prices-are-negotiated-germany https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2019/how-drug-prices-a...
      • Latty 6y ago
        Sure, that's true. It's not exactly uncommon to conflate a term with the most common/likely implementations known though, which is what I assumed happened here. It is true that universal healthcare could solve those problems, even if it doesn't have to.
  • worik 6y ago
    "universal healthcare" just means everyone's covered. That is unnecessary. You know what was meant. No need to be deliberately obtuse
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • gruez 6y ago
      > No need to be deliberately obtuse It's important, because using the wrong/imprecise terminology muddles the conversation, and allowing it to go uncorrected normalizes it. When it comes to something like politics, all this will lead to is more polarization.