Universal healthcare

[Lerxst]

I have lots of stuff to say on this. But everytime I get into any of these damn arguments it just gets sucked into a mudslinging of epic proportions.

If anything I'd have to say to the 'stats' in the OP, 'stats' are stats. They're just numbers on a spreadsheet, if you think about it, not only are they easy to manipulate, but they're not very practical. Just in general.

Also, I'd like to note that not enough people look at the other side to see if their argument is valid. I was 'raised' republican. But lately I took a very good and long look at all of Obama's, and Clinton's policies, to see if a) they truly hold merit, and b) if they have given the rewards promised. I've decided against this. I am so greatly opposed to so many parts of this current Administration. Its destroyed the constitution. In the coming weeks, if the Supreme Court passes the HealthCare bill that most didn't read when they created it, America will no longer be free.

You can go ahead and call me asinine, prejudice, etc. It doesn't really matter. Take a snap shot of america 4 years ago. And look at it again in another 4 years if Obama is re-elected, and this system is go. The worst part of the 'great recession' won't be anything compared to whats to come.

And the last thing I want to do, is have to visit the DMV every time I need a RX refill. Good god, no. The government just sucks at running shit. It's not been very successful at anything it's done in this sector, so why try healthcare? Because the hippies of the 70s and 60s are all grown up now, and they're mad that the rest of the world doesn't like America

I think you're confusing "Obamacare" with Universal Healthcare. One still requires money being exchanged and promotes corporate profits, while the other promotes a "free" system using tax dollars to pay for it all. This country has never once even been close to a universal healthcare system. In the years after WWII many of the developed nations switched over to one, but the US stayed with the same old methods we knew. Why? Maybe because it was strange, it was different and people were (and still are) afraid of it?

If I took a snapshot of America 4 years ago we'd still be in Iraq, still be "hunting" Bin Laden, not think twice about oil rigs in the Gulf, have dozens of endangered species free to hunt on a whim and have a housing bubble that was getting over-inflated to the point of collapse. I'm not a fan of Obama or any recent Democrat; they don't do enough. They compromise and take half-measures until their original plans fail to actually do anything and then people on the other side criticize those plans for not doing anything.

I think I've used the Wile E Coyote analogy before, but that's what both sides of our government resemble. Let's take a bad idea, repeat a dozen times and wonder why it won't work. Let's take a good idea with only one slight flaw and scrap it as a failure without trying to prove it works.

And for the last point, you're assuming one will equal another. Let me assume just the opposite. I want to assume that with a government healthcare program, the people just trying to slide by will be weeded out. For any of the real, qualified jobs in the field, you need a lot of training. Today, people go through that training just to get a good paying job. Take away that pay incentive and the people left in that training will be there because they really want to be. Secondly, everyone with a license needs to go to the DMV and they are spread much thinner throughout a city than doctors offices and pharmacies. Unless that same number of people got sick on a daily basis and they closed most of the neighborhood clinics, hospitals and doctors offices, forcing them all to go to one and only one location, you can't even compare the level of service, lines or crowds.

Thirdly... If you're a US citizen who's lived here your entire life, you wouldn't have any means of comparison for a universal healthcare system. We've never had one. At this point, the people opposing it just sound like more articulate versions of the 3 year old refusing to eat a food for the first time. And having a friend of family member who lives in Canada is too small of a sample to use; one bad experience or one bad hospital doesn't equal a flawed governmental system. The only numbers we can use for something that extensive come in the form of graphs and charts that you're too critical of to take seriously.

So what I'm saying is that the people opposing this are ignorant about it. It's their own ignorance, though, that's making them too ignorant to realize their ignorant.

[video=youtube_share;m0qPYkfNMPg]http://youtu.be/m0qPYkfNMPg[/video]

 

[Saru Inc]

K

 

[Melkor]

I think anything the Canadians are doing right should be hastily adapted to American life to the benefit of all.
Those guys are like Americans with a bit of sense. ^_^

 

[Untitled]

Look at social security. It's a great idea. Until you factor in all of the people it pays for that never worked a day in their life. Social security is in deep trouble. And now we want to let the government issue insurance? They cannot even balance the budget and keep our country out of debt. And we are going to trust them with health insurance? In order for insurance to work they need to make a profit. So the only way that the government can do that is to let people die. That way they save money. And then they can spend that money on others who need assistance. You will find that in time that the amount of money coming in will not be enough to cover the insurance. Then what? If the government can be in direct competition with business then why stop at health insurance. They can make cars tv's oil gasoline mine for gold the list goes on and on. If we are going to let the government into the private sector where will the new line be?





​

I think you're confusing "Obamacare" with Universal Healthcare. One still requires money being exchanged and promotes corporate profits, while the other promotes a "free" system using tax dollars to pay for it all. This country has never once even been close to a universal healthcare system. In the years after WWII many of the developed nations switched over to one, but the US stayed with the same old methods we knew. Why? Maybe because it was strange, it was different and people were (and still are) afraid of it?

Coming from a country with national health insurance I always find it strange that this is such a hot potato for you Americans, sorry... It's not very expensive really and everyone benefits. Quite the contrary in my country some health care services have been outsourced to privates in the recent years but the results have proven unsatisfactory and much more costly than previous state provided care. There's serious talk of privatizing functions being a major mistake.

Somehow healthcare in your country is a strange social Darwinistic issue where some perceived freeloaders are viewed as sucking money from the employed good people, yet most of the western world has national health insurance. It's a non issue in those countries. Why are the people who need health insurance so demonized is a much more interesting question?

I think where you have a problem from what I understand is that your private health insurances are huge business for private companies. Anyone with stock in those companies would stand to lose a great deal of money. That's why Obama probably cannot override that interest group. He would most likely not be backed by the senate I'm guessing, though It's much cheaper than negotiating with private companies. I don't know wether the hospitals are state owned in your country but if they are not it would probably be a problem. In countries like mine they are state owned so there's no negotiation. I personally am a strong believer in that nationally significant functions should not be privatized. Some things it's immoral to make maximum profit from and those kind of statements speak of our values as societies.

 

[Stu]

Why does government have to provide health care?


​

We have a choice in this nation. We either continue our tradition of providing medical assistance to those in need or we do not. The rest of it is pure Bullshit.

 

[Lerxst]

coming from a country with national health insurance i always find it strange that this is such a hot potato for you americans, sorry... It's not very expensive really and everyone benefits. Quite the contrary in my country some health care services have been outsourced to privates in the recent years but the results have proven unsatisfactory and much more costly than previous state provided care. There's serious talk of privatizing functions being a major mistake.

Somehow healthcare in your country is a strange social darwinistic issue where some perceived freeloaders are viewed as sucking money from the employed good people, yet most of the western world has national health insurance. It's a non issue in those countries. Why are the people who need health insurance so demonized is a much more interesting question?

I think where you have a problem from what i understand is that your private health insurances are huge business for private companies. Anyone with stock in those companies would stand to lose a great deal of money. That's why obama probably cannot override that interest group. He would most likely not be backed by the senate i'm guessing, though it's much cheaper than negotiating with private companies. I don't know wether the hospitals are state owned in your country but if they are not it would probably be a problem. In countries like mine they are state owned so there's no negotiation. I personally am a strong believer in that nationally significant functions should not be privatized. Some things it's immoral to make maximum profit from and those kind of statements speak of our values as societies.

Thank you!!!!!!!!!

 

[bickelz]

Okay, I'll admit that I'm not at 100% thinking ability right now (and not sure what you're talking about), but isn't the adverse selection argument that the people with the lowest risk in an insurance pool will drop out due to the price being too high for them, thereby increasing the risk and therefore price further, and so on until the market collapses? If that is the case, then it should be clear that the assumption that low-risk folks drop out is necessary for the argument and quite weak.

Firstly, the market wouldn't collapse, we would just end up with higher prices and many people unemployed.

I don't understand where you get that "low risk folks won't drop out when the price increases". Healthcare is like any other good/service in the sense that a rise in price will cause people to exit the market. It's really simple. Just think about it...you're 18. Would you buy healthcare and pay for it yourself right now? I know I sure as hell wouldn't, I'm going to save that money instead and possibly use it for medical purposes in the future. And since there are many people in my position, the average risk in the insurance pools will steadily rise and so will prices.

 

[bickelz]

I think you're confusing "Obamacare" with Universal Healthcare. One still requires money being exchanged and promotes corporate profits, while the other promotes a "free" system using tax dollars to pay for it all.

Does it really make that much of a difference? Either way, we're forced to pay for something that we may not want to consume. I view both options as equally bad because they're both enforced through government force aka, violence.

I think I've used the Wile E Coyote analogy before, but that's what both sides of our government resemble. Let's take a bad idea, repeat a dozen times and wonder why it won't work. Let's take a good idea with only one slight flaw and scrap it as a failure without trying to prove it works.

What ideas have been "good" ideas? "Good" is entirely based on your political standpoint. In markets, a business is doing "good" if it is earning a profit. This means that it is both running efficiently and providing a good/service that people value and are therefore buying. If it runs at a loss (notice government debt), it's not working efficiently and probably not providing a good/service that people value.

I want to assume that with a government healthcare program, the people just trying to slide by will be weeded out.

That's a big assumption and it's highly unrealistic. People were sending the SEC letters for years about Bernie Madoff saying that the whole thing was mathematically impossible yet they did nothing.

For any of the real, qualified jobs in the field, you need a lot of training. Today, people go through that training just to get a good paying job. Take away that pay incentive and the people left in that training will be there because they really want to be.

People do things on their own because of paid incentives. If you rely on people's benevolence alone to go to med school and pass up decent pay in the meantime, people aren't going to do it.

Secondly, everyone with a license needs to go to the DMV and they are spread much thinner throughout a city than doctors offices and pharmacies. Unless that same number of people got sick on a daily basis and they closed most of the neighborhood clinics, hospitals and doctors offices, forcing them all to go to one and only one location, you can't even compare the level of service, lines or crowds.

The DMV example is a great example of government inefficiency as far as crowds go and it is because of the lack of a price system in government institutions that causes this misallocation of resources. Doctors offices will become progressively more crowded if the service becomes "free" upon the point of consumption (I'm assuming taxes that paid for the visits are sunk costs). It's simple law of demand, if something is free, you're going to consume as much as possible. People will go to the doctor's for things like the common cold and other minor things rather than for more serious conditions.

Thirdly... If you're a US citizen who's lived here your entire life, you wouldn't have any means of comparison for a universal healthcare system. We've never had one. At this point, the people opposing it just sound like more articulate versions of the 3 year old refusing to eat a food for the first time. And having a friend of family member who lives in Canada is too small of a sample to use; one bad experience or one bad hospital doesn't equal a flawed governmental system. The only numbers we can use for something that extensive come in the form of graphs and charts that you're too critical of to take seriously.

And conversely, one experience with free market healthcare doesn't tell the entire tale with our system. So let's just stay away from anecdotal evidence from now on and concentrate on either hard data or logic (preferably economic as it's sort of an economic problem, and by "sort of" I mean it is an economic problem).

So what I'm saying is that the people opposing this are ignorant about it. It's their own ignorance, though, that's making them too ignorant to realize their ignorant.

I realize this wasn't directed at anyone in particular but you have called me an idiot between 3 and 5 times the last time we went at it on the GMO thread and I thought it was a bit uncalled for. Just because there are people who are not bleeding heart liberals doesn't mean that they're idiots. Some people may actually disagree with you so exercise some tolerance and show some respect.

Coming from a country with national health insurance I always find it strange that this is such a hot potato for you Americans, sorry... It's not very expensive really and everyone benefits. Quite the contrary in my country some health care services have been outsourced to privates in the recent years but the results have proven unsatisfactory and much more costly than previous state provided care. There's serious talk of privatizing functions being a major mistake.

But this is anecdotal evidence at best. The care might be more costly for literally a hundred different reasons.

Somehow healthcare in your country is a strange social Darwinistic issue where some perceived freeloaders are viewed as sucking money from the employed good people, yet most of the western world has national health insurance. It's a non issue in those countries. Why are the people who need health insurance so demonized is a much more interesting question?

It seems foreign to many Europeans but Europeans are also okay with 60% income taxes in some places, which is disgusting. Just because you all think it's okay, doesn't mean that it actually is; especially when it comes to government force.

 

[Matt3737]

Healthcare is such a touchy subject because it is essentially a spiritual matter.

Health, wellness, and healing are essential elements relating to religion. Shamans/medicine men were the initial doctors in early primitive societies.

I had heard that in those countries that have universal healthcare people use it for basic healthcare needs, but for serious issues they will come to the US if they can afford to. I think that the issue comes down to what extent do we have an obligation to keep people alive and at what point should we accept that that person is beyond helping. Let's not forget the Terri Schiavo case.

Also, to what degree would we have to cover the expense of gross negligence. I don't know how many of you watch Tosh.O (I hate to admit it; the show is pure garbage), but there are a LOT of idiotic people who, in my opinion, would be better off dead than covering the cost of their idiocy. Outright gross and disgusting negligence. We're talking about fighting an evolutionary counter-productive battle in some cases.

I think we can afford to cover the cost of very basic healthcare needs, but beyond that is very questionable in my opinion. The recent questioning of Dick Cheney's heart transplant comes to mind. At what age is it acceptable to deny healthcare to someone due to the cost outweighing the benefit? I don't think we would want the government to regulate these sort of spiritual, life and death questions. Very basic healthcare needs is all I feel comfortable letting the government regulate.

 

[Saru Inc]

I kind of sort of laughed/cried when friggin sup. court. j word Kagan said "How is a big gift from the government coercion?"

bitch, please.

 

[Untitled]

Does it really make that much of a difference? Either way, we're forced to pay for something that we may not want to consume. I view both options as equally bad because they're both enforced through government force aka, violence.

Violence? It's a democracy. You choose representatives who represent you as a voter. These representatives who you vote in office for to represent your beliefs and make policies based on your values as citizens. They are people you give a vote of confidence to represent you in policy making. In effect the policy should reflect the majority opinion on matters. That's democracy. It does involve active participation from each and every citizen though, so that the right people get elected, i.e. the ones who have your best interests at heart. It's not violence it's supposed to be protecting the interests of the people.

One thing about businesses that I don't think anyone can much disagree with is that their main interest is by default to maximize the profits for shareholders. That is what they do. That means minimizing cost everywhere you can without it totally ruining your reputation and hurting your business... but are they often proactively trying to make sure of ethical working conditions or not moving production to cheap 3rd world countries leaving mass unemployment in their wake if unsupervised by national policy? The social responsibility factor it seems does have to be regulated somewhat unfortunately.

this is anecdotal evidence at best. The care might be more costly for literally a hundred different reasons.



It seems foreign to many Europeans but Europeans are also okay with 60% income taxes in some places, which is disgusting. Just because you all think it's okay, doesn't mean that it actually is; especially when it comes to government force.

In most of Europe (and you'd be referring to an area where I'm from) fines and income tax etc is progressive, which effectually means that the more you make, the more tax you pay. For a tax precentage of 60% you'd have to be one of the top earning people. What you get in return is to live in a more peaceful society, where the absolute poverty and problems that come with it are minimal (gangs, large scale drug problems). You don't have to live in secluded areas for fear of violence and you can leave your kids to play unsupervised in the yard. There's free university, free schools top rated in the PISA surveys, free healthcare, low cost daycare and unemployment benefits and re-integration programs for people who loose their jobs. It's not like it's Shangri-La, procedures always have to be re-evaluated, but there are many merits.

http://www.cognitionandculture.net/...almost-always-do-b&catid=37:nicolas&Itemid=34

The evidence is not just anecdotal if you want to look into it. There are many studies, obviously. I'm presenting it anecdotally.


My point is there are not just one way of doing things. I appreciate that you have a different culture, one that has a hero myth of the hardworking man or woman who through their own effort becomes a millionaire. However there are studies that show that social mobility has decreased from what it used to be and that it's increasingly difficult.

Japan has a policy to keep 0 GDP because of the age structure of the society and that's a conscious choice which reflects shared values.
That's a "radical" way to do things with the whole ideology the western world has bought into in recent decades, but makes sense if you think of general welfare and social responsibility.

I understand it's possibly upsetting for some to have an outsider discuss these things but I'm only trying to provide fresh perspective in one particular matter as someone who comes from a place with said free healthcare. I think it's good to be aware of many types of experiences and views to help make an informed choice.

 

[Rferraris]

I believe people, as ignorant and stupid as they are, are smarter than when our founding fathers put the constitution in place. The idea that the privileged should be the ruling class is wrong, and even more so today.

My point is everyone has an opinion and something to say. Maybe that is a good thing, but between our internal fighting, the media, and the general political obfuscation, we are doomed to make little progress.

I thank those that are either in a financial situation where they can dedicate their lives to a cause, or to the people that cannot afford it, but do it anyway.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?o5d4qi

 

[Lerxst]

Healthcare is such a touchy subject because it is essentially a spiritual matter.

Health, wellness, and healing are essential elements relating to religion. Shamans/medicine men were the initial doctors in early primitive societies.

I had heard that in those countries that have universal healthcare people use it for basic healthcare needs, but for serious issues they will come to the US if they can afford to.

You're talking about people richer than most of us will ever know, relative to US terms of wealth that is. Their coverage, testing, office visits and medication were all provided for them up to the point of making that final decision. Ask yourself how many people you know have an undiagnosed illness or a chronic problem they can't fix or diagnose due to lack of insurance, or meeting their cap - I know this is especially true of dental procedures which can cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Everything these people need, short of the actual cure, is provided for them since birth. In fact, you can even argue that being brought up in those societies is the only reasons they were diagnosed with an illness in time to even take action on it in the first place. They were able to save the costs of paying thousands of dollars in testing, drugs and preliminary treatment thanks to the system they already had.

I can't speak for others out there, but I consider these people a leech. They take the money they were able to save by not having to pay for their own medical care, to pay for a treatment they wouldn't have been able to be diagnosed with had it not been for the free healthcare they had, and cross the border to have it done. Then others in this country only see the end result; a Canadian who had to come to America to get their much needed surgery. Meanwhile, no one considers the system that gave them the means needed to pursue that treatment in the first place.

 

[manatee]

Firstly, the market wouldn't collapse, we would just end up with higher prices and many people unemployed.

What? Where does employment enter the picture?

I don't understand where you get that "low risk folks won't drop out when the price increases". [...] And since there are many people in my position, the average risk in the insurance pools will steadily rise and so will prices.

Look, I'm not saying the amount of peeps willing to purchase it doesn't stay the same if price goes up, ceteris paribus. The only thing that can be said with certainty beforehand, though, is that those who value the insurance less than the cost will not purchase it. The claim in your last sentence that the price will steadily go up due to heightened average risk relies on the assumption that people with lower risk will consistently exit at a proportionately higher rate than those with higher risk (presumably based on the reasoning that, since they have a lower expected monetary return, they value the insurance less). As I stated in my first comment, there are reasonable conjectures that the opposite would be true instead!


Why are we discussing a situation where there's seemingly very limited underwriting, though? Which brings me to the question you asked me personally: if an insurer could charge me a premium based on the risk group I'm in for an insurance that covers only the events I have a legitimate interest in insuring myself against, then yeah, I probably would. It's not currently relevant for me though, since I live in a country with socialized medicine.

 

[slant]

I would like a more Social Democracy in the United States, such as what they have in most of Scandinavia. Universal Healthcare is one step closer towards this.

 

[Jack]

Please don't confuse conservatives and republicans. I am socially moderate, but politically libertarian. (true conservative not a neo-con)

Military spending is way too much.

Also, forcing me to pay for healthcare? I don't need to be told what to purchase by the government, and I especially don't want to be coerced into purchasing anything. I'll risk foregoing it. I haven't paid so much attention to this, but the coercion factor puts me at odds with it, all else nothwithstanding. If that is eliminated, then I couldn't care less.

The funny thing is this seems both at odds with conservatism and liberalism in that regard, (using government to advance corporate greed) it seems to be defended simply by reaction like most republican/democrat policies. Gotta have team spirit guys.

 

[JGirl]

i think it's criminal that the united states government can spend so much money sending men and women to die for their political agendas yet no universal healthcare for its people.

 

[JGirl]

I can't speak for others out there, but I consider these people a leech. They take the money they were able to save by not having to pay for their own medical care, to pay for a treatment they wouldn't have been able to be diagnosed with had it not been for the free healthcare they had, and cross the border to have it done. Then others in this country only see the end result; a Canadian who had to come to America to get their much needed surgery. Meanwhile, no one considers the system that gave them the means needed to pursue that treatment in the first place.

what? i'm not sure this even makes sense
do you actually know what our health system is like here or are you just speculating?

 

[Saru Inc]

Heads up:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/heal-m19.shtml

 

[This]

On a personal level I'd rather have my taxes going into universal healthcare than half of the shit they go into already.