2 Key Points For Debating Health Care & Crushing BS Talking Points

[ihavenobias]

over the prospect (which sadly doesn't exist) of a single payer health care system in the US. We even have prominent Republican senators , although thankfully is trying to keep them honest. At any rate, I wanted to share 2 critical points everyone should know well for discussing these topics with friends, family and coworkers.

NOTE: I know this might be obvious to many/most of us, but it's not always concisely stated or framed in a way that's easy to share with others who aren't as informed as we are.

1. The US health care system is not the best in the world. But don't take my word for it, instead look at the evidence provided by the , "which represents CEOs of major companies". You read that right. When the right winger/libertarian in your life gets ready to dismiss the following information as somehow being biased by socialist interest groups (or some other such nonsense), make sure you point out who the Business Roundtable represents.

From :

"...Americans spend $2.4 trillion a year on health care. The Business Roundtable report says Americans in 2006 spent $1,928 per capita on health care, at least two-and-a-half times more per person than any other advanced country.

In a different twist, the report took those costs and factored benefits into the equation.

It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said.

The results are not encouraging.

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider — 46 points — when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India...".

2. No one is actually pushing for "socialized medicine". How would giving people a choice to opt in to a public plan possibly be described as "government taking over health care"?

That point is so obvious that I shouldn't have to make it. Apparently a less obvious point is that the Single Payer system many progressives (myself included) favor is also not "socialized medicine". Very few countries have actual "socialized medicine" which would be accurately described as the government not only providing the insurance, but also running the hospitals, i.e. hiring and firing the doctors and nurses, purchasing the equipment, etc.

If someone insists on trying to fear monger with the word socialism, they could at least try to be a little accurate. The Single Payer system most progressives want could possibly be described as "Socialized Insurance". And even in that case it would likely just mean a public plan that would provide basic coverage for all Americans. If you wanted something special like a private room, experimental treatments or cosmetic surgery, the private insurance companies would still be around to provide coverage for those extra services.

PS---Sadly we're nowhere close to a single payer system, and there's a chance we're not even close to a good, non-watered down public option. But if someone insists on BS talking points about long wait times and low doctor pay, you can also share the information in this great piece: