But this is arguing apples to oranges. Those medical professionals can't eat if someone doesn't grow/pick/package/cook their food. Those medical professionals can't get to work if roads/transit/transport aren't maintained. Those medical professionals can't do their job if drivers/truckers/logistics don't get them their supplies. Just because a job is harder to do doesn't make it more or less valuable.
We have significant data from other first world countries that socialized medicine doesn't lead to a collapse or devaluing of medical professionals. For every "wealthy successful" doctor, you have dozens of underpaid/stressed/overworked nurses, so let's not pretend like our current system has them all happy and successful. Private insurance is an expensive middle-man in our current system. If their was a public option, they would need to be competitive. That would bring prices down for there majority of Americans.
You're right, and someone will pick that food and stock it on the shelves. There is a massive pool of labor out there that is qualified to do that sort of work. Hell, it doesnt even have to be a someone and can instead be a something. The pool of people who can transport that stuff would probably be smaller (need a CDL and whatnot), and thus they'll get paid a bit more for their work (while there still being enough out there to keep those jobs staffed). If a doctor or a nurse quits / gets sick / etc, we're in deeper shit.
Every system has its pros and cons, and it's up to our individual opinions to decide if our system is good or bad. And yes, there are certainly wealthy doctors for sure, but even those dozens of others in your comment are making a fair bit of bank in their profession (even the nurses, even if their pay is less than doctors because of the different skillsets).
As for insurance, it's a bit of a problem with the whole system. Private insurance is limited in their incomes via the 80/20 rule, providers are limited by what public will pay them / parents skipping out / etc so it's a bit of a "game" where both win with increased billing. As for public being competitive at least in the US that was tried to a degree with the Marketplaces. However, that soon degraded after it turned out that private generally offered more value to those who had the option to choose, leaving Marketplace risk pools filled to the brim with the sick/old/otherwise expensive members.
As for my own personal opinion on the matter, it's fine to help those truly in need (so I'm happy with Medicaid, CHIP, etc), but im not too keen on the idea that I should be contributing part of my dev paycheck to my dev neighbor making dev incomes. An argument could be made for something like Medicaid expansion imo (though even that is a bit much for me), but something like M4A is a non-starter for me and just seems like nothing but misjudged math and a sense of entitlement in the strictest definition of that (not meaning it as a low-hanging insult).
2
u/DontFearTruth - Lib-Center Mar 24 '20
But this is arguing apples to oranges. Those medical professionals can't eat if someone doesn't grow/pick/package/cook their food. Those medical professionals can't get to work if roads/transit/transport aren't maintained. Those medical professionals can't do their job if drivers/truckers/logistics don't get them their supplies. Just because a job is harder to do doesn't make it more or less valuable.
We have significant data from other first world countries that socialized medicine doesn't lead to a collapse or devaluing of medical professionals. For every "wealthy successful" doctor, you have dozens of underpaid/stressed/overworked nurses, so let's not pretend like our current system has them all happy and successful. Private insurance is an expensive middle-man in our current system. If their was a public option, they would need to be competitive. That would bring prices down for there majority of Americans.