Would a National Healthcare system have done a better job with the Covid response?

[statquo]

After having a year to watch how the states and health system handle Covid, with inconsistency from state to state, and the botched vaccine rollout, would a national healthcare system have done a better job? And will this change some people's mind on getting a national healthcare system?

[blams]

After having a year to watch how the states and health system handle Covid, with inconsistency from state to state, and the botched vaccine rollout, would a national healthcare system have done a better job? And will this change some people's mind on getting a national healthcare system?

Yes, it wouldn't be close

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

[PackerBum9786]

no cause you still hand incompetency at the head of the country. someone who kept telling us that it was a hoax and it wasn't any worse than the flu and it would be over in a couple weeks. national healthcare wouldnt be able to fix that. now the vaccine debacle maybe it could have but, who knows.

[MRSpock]

No. I only say this because we still wouldn't of been prepared for a pandemic like this when it comes to supplies, and coordination.

It was incredibly important to have people working form the top (with Fauci) on getting accurate information out, and helping the states prepare for everything.

At the end of the day you'd still have Trump feeding misinformation, and ignoring the problem, in a country that isn't accustomed to handling this situation.

A National Health care system would obviously be better overall, but it wouldn't of helped fix the ineptitudes of Trump.

[SiteWolf]

To assume a National Healthcare system would have handled it better also assumes that system is designed to directly lead responses on a national level, and that's simply not how it would be set up and there would still be a myriad of weak links to cause problems throughout the system.

If you want to say would a guided national response to this have been better, 1000% yes.

[nastynice]

In a way yes, having a medical professional who actually understands what is going on lead the response would have saved us about 350k lives and $5 trillion. Because we had an incompetent moron trump running things we had to pay the ultimate price.

In a way no, because the main issue is that govt did not lay out or enforce any plan of action. That's not a health care issue, it's a regulation.issue. We had Dr Fauci saying what to do, the idiotic White House just didnt listen to him.

So, I guess I'm undecided.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[R. Johnson#3]

To assume a National Healthcare system would have handled it better also assumes that system is designed to directly lead responses on a national level, and that's simply not how it would be set up and there would still be a myriad of weak links to cause problems throughout the system.

If you want to say would a guided national response to this have been better, 1000% yes.

Are Covid tests free in the states?

[WES445]

In a way yes, having a medical professional who actually understands what is going on lead the response would have saved us about 350k lives and $5 trillion. Because we had an incompetent moron trump running things we had to pay the ultimate price.

In a way no, because the main issue is that govt did not lay out or enforce any plan of action. That's not a health care issue, it's a regulation.issue. We had Dr Fauci saying what to do, the idiotic White House just didnt listen to him.

So, I guess I'm undecided.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I am with you. Medicare for all gets everyone plugged into the medical care system regardless of money. People get the life-saving treatment they need regardless of money.

Our leaders' response was so scatter-shot for political and economical reasons that it is hard to say if universal healthcare would have helped. They didn't put the welfare of the people first and foremost when making their decisions.

[Scoots]

no cause you still hand incompetency at the head of the country. someone who kept telling us that it was a hoax and it wasn't any worse than the flu and it would be over in a couple weeks. national healthcare wouldnt be able to fix that. now the vaccine debacle maybe it could have but, who knows.

Yeah it comes down to resource application. CA did a lot of prep for a pandemic, but it was all defunded before covid and it made a nice demonstration of how what matters is the right people making the decisions and them getting the money to follow up on good decisions. National health care systems are notorious for being thrifty and having to make decisions on where they will put their funds. National health care systems are also frequently saddled with a ton of bureaucracy which tends to slow responses to change.

All that said, not likely to do much worse.

[MRSpock]

Yeah it comes down to resource application. CA did a lot of prep for a pandemic, but it was all defunded before covid and it made a nice demonstration of how what matters is the right people making the decisions and them getting the money to follow up on good decisions. National health care systems are notorious for being thrifty and having to make decisions on where they will put their funds. National health care systems are also frequently saddled with a ton of bureaucracy which tends to slow responses to change.

All that said, not likely to do much worse.

That's probably because people got to comfy. It has nothing to do with a "national healthcare system". You go overseas and see places like South Korea. This isn't anything new for them. Pandemics have hit them before.

Even China. SARA wasn't that long ago. No one in America today remembers the "flu pandemic".

[valade16]

Yeah it comes down to resource application. CA did a lot of prep for a pandemic, but it was all defunded before covid and it made a nice demonstration of how what matters is the right people making the decisions and them getting the money to follow up on good decisions. National health care systems are notorious for being thrifty and having to make decisions on where they will put their funds. National health care systems are also frequently saddled with a ton of bureaucracy which tends to slow responses to change.

All that said, not likely to do much worse.

But a single bureaucracy is less bureaucracy than 50+ individual ones, which is why our system suffers from more bureaucracy than most universal systems. I thought you were for universal healthcare?

Also, California was 26th in cases per 1M and 38th in deaths per 1M. I know it is hip to criticizes California for everything, but in terms of ensuring Californians safety from Covid, they did a fairly good job (one could argue they were unnecessarily harsh in terms of lockdown measures and durations, but they did a good job keeping their numbers middle to low per person).

[Scoots]

But a single bureaucracy is less bureaucracy than 50+ individual ones, which is why our system suffers from more bureaucracy than most universal systems. I thought you were for universal healthcare?

Also, California was 26th in cases per 1M and 38th in deaths per 1M. I know it is hip to criticizes California for everything, but in terms of ensuring Californians safety from Covid, they did a fairly good job (one could argue they were unnecessarily harsh in terms of lockdown measures and durations, but they did a good job keeping their numbers middle to low per person).

I am for universal health care, I just don't assume it would have handled this better when there are still budgets and people getting re-elected having a say in how things are run.

I mentioned CA because the Governator invested big in preparing for a pandemic and Brown tore it all down to save money. It was just an example in my experience where money moving away was, in retrospect, a failure. Or with the PPE reserves not getting restocked under Obama (not saying it's his fault, just to give a time frame).

In general humans are bad at preparing for disaster when they see the promised disaster not turn up over an over let alone even when we see the warnings pay off with devastation. Like we were told swine flu was going to be a major killer and it wasn't and SARS was going to be and it wasn't. It's human nature to dismiss future warnings. (and I'm not trying to talk anything about the specifics of those viruses)

Or, if you prefer, we can look at people building houses in CA. CA has had on the books for a generation the proper way to prepare your property to survive the fires that have been happening there my whole life (I used to sit on the roof hosing it down watching the hills burn and planes drop red fire retarding chemicals on it). After the huge loss of houses over the last 10 years or so surveys checked on how many houses did that prep work in those areas and the answer was a miniscule number. The houses have largely been re-built, and most still don't have those preparations done.

Humans are not good at preparing for rare events even with warnings and bad past experience, so I don't expect a national health care service would have knocked it out of the park had it existed.

[Scoots]

In a way yes, having a medical professional who actually understands what is going on lead the response would have saved us about 350k lives and $5 trillion. Because we had an incompetent moron trump running things we had to pay the ultimate price.

In a way no, because the main issue is that govt did not lay out or enforce any plan of action. That's not a health care issue, it's a regulation.issue. We had Dr Fauci saying what to do, the idiotic White House just didnt listen to him.

So, I guess I'm undecided.

On the idea that they would have dropped the deaths by 350k ... The US has around 1/4th of the total reported covid cases in the world and 1/4 of the deaths. The death rate is pretty consistent. Most first world countries have similar infection rates, so are you suggesting national health care would reduce the infection rate by 8+ times (or lower than any western nation, or about 8000 cases per 1M people)? Or that they would somehow make more people survive?

I'm in no way suggesting the US has done a good job at this, just questioning the idea that anybody or any body could reduce the US death rate by 85%.

(also, keep in mind the US has done more testing per capita than the every major country out there other than the UK which will naturally result in more positive cases being found)

Maybe it's you who is brain washed.

[nastynice]

On the idea that they would have dropped the deaths by 350k ... The US has around 1/4th of the total reported covid cases in the world and 1/4 of the deaths. The death rate is pretty consistent. Most first world countries have similar infection rates, so are you suggesting national health care would reduce the infection rate by 8+ times (or lower than any western nation, or about 8000 cases per 1M people)? Or that they would somehow make more people survive?

I'm in no way suggesting the US has done a good job at this, just questioning the idea that anybody or any body could reduce the US death rate by 85%.

(also, keep in mind the US has done more testing per capita than the every major country out there other than the UK which will naturally result in more positive cases being found)

Maybe it's you who is brain washed.

If we have 1/4 the cases and 1/4 the deaths, while having less than 1/20 the world population, then clearly the spread is much worse here than the rest of the world.

Yes, the consistent death rate hurts the country with the worse spread.

I dont know what national health care would do exactly, but I know a competent science based response would have us using mandatory distancing, travel restriction, and screening measures starting in January 2019. If we did that we would have prolonged those march april surges until this winter. That's a HUGE difference.

US testing more isnt the reason our numbers are high, as you mentioned yourself our death rate is in line with everyone else. The spread (and subsequent death) is much worse here.

Belgium just banned all leisure travel, exactly what I was saying CA, WA, and NY should do back in February...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[TylerSL]

Yes, a national healthcare system would have been better because state governments had such different reactions on how to handle COVID the whole situation was made even worse. Nothing was going to stop the Trump administration from not taking the disease seriously, so it probably wouldn't have helped a lot considering who was in charge, but COVID is a prime example of why we need Universal healthcare in this country.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2020...not%20employed.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...erage-pandemic

15% of U.S. adults say that they were personally laid off or lost a job because of the coronavirus outbreak, 56% of lower-income workers (among that 15%) are still unemployed. 7.7 million workers lost their health coverage when they were laid off or let go, affecting another 6.9 million dependents. That's 14.6 million people who lost their health coverage solely because of the pandemic. The United States pays more in healthcare than any other nation yet we have millions who don't have access to healthcare. Millions more lost coverage because of what it did to economic output.

Our current healthcare system contributed to how bad things have gotten with COVID, it's one of the biggest issues. A national health care system would not have solved all problems everywhere, COVID was always going to be very bad, but there is no denying that our current system has contributed to how bad things have gotten.

The thing that made COVID as bad as it's been is inaction from our leaders. We should actually shut down and paid people to stay home. $2,000/month to stay home, except to buy food or other emergencies. Wear a mask when out in public or pay a big fine. Instead, we gave billions of dollars to big business while people were forced to stay home, not be able to work, and starve/get evicted. Our leaders politicized the whole thing and spread misinformation. It got people killed, and did severe damage to the economy.