Universal Healthcare

[JosephTheLibertarian]

No they are not.



A false dichotomoy. I'm not arguing in favor of changing your health care. I'm arguing in favor of some level of government committment to provide at least a minimal access to healthcare to everyone.

Why? So that they can ruin it? Like they have ruined everything else?

Our government purifies water, and that purified water is available to everyone. Is that communism?

That garbage is not purified lol. Government never thought about the PIPES that are poisoning everyone.

Is that a big government tyranny of clean water?

It's not clean. Well water is much nicer.

People still go out on their own and pay extra to get bottled water, are those people then SLAVES, paying their hard earned taxes some so some worthless impoverished bum gets to drink pure water?

Maybe because "some worthless impoverished bum" prefers purified water.

Under this anarchic fantasy of extreme self-sufficiency shouldn't the poor, and the homeless be forced to purify their own water? Maybe you think they should lap up water from the gutter like dogs?

Government is what keeps people impoverished.

The truth is that we purify water because it is an issue of PUBLIC HEALTH. As unfair and as unjust as it may be, we are all linked together by our shared genetic heritage. No man is an island.

Just as providing sanitary water to drink is important to public health, so is managing and controlling infectious diseases in the community. Trying to pretend that it's not your problem is just sticking your head in the sand.



Now there's a real non-sequitir. When your clothing/housing/internet choices have the possibility of infecting me with disease then maybe you'll have a point.

I bet you have Giardia.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Ever hear of an immune system? I suggest you develop one.

What a brilliant answer for those people suffering with infectious diseases. You must be a fucking child, because clearly you've never had anyone you cared about afflicted with disease or you wouldn't post such infantile bullshit. Either that or your a retardedly self-centered misanthrope. I suggest you grow the fuck up.

I sincerely hope you end up in a doctors office with something like this:

And the doctor tells you "Ever hear of an immune system? I suggest you develop one. Dur Dur Dur."

 

[nightlight]

oh..my.. arguing for status quo? You're even worse than Edward lol

No, I am arguing agsinst more of the government + "Sickness Industry" monoply, which is only partial now and which is downside of the present system. The socialized medicine would complete the destruction.

I would dismantle FDA or at least turn it into purely informative agency with no power of enforcement on matters of health choices (such as banning/restricting you from buying or importing medications without prescription, or using alternative medicine).

 

[Zippyjuan]

So you would surrender control to the monopolistic pharmacutical companies, hospital chains, and insurance companies which have led to the spiraling costs of medicine we see today? I would prefer not to see that happen. The FDA also regulates the safety of things like medicines and makes sure that drugs actually contain what they say they are supposed to. There is not free market competition in the healthcare industry. OPEC is a more apt similie.

Government is what keeps people impoverished.

I am lucky to live in one of the best impoverished countries on earth. There are not many other similarly impoverished nations I would like to move to. It is not pefect, but there are few better alternatives right now. We like to complain and it is certainly not utopia, but compared to most of the planet, we have things pretty good here.

It's not clean. Well water is much nicer.

Not necessarily. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/healthywater/factsheets/contaminants.htm
But bottled water is not necessarily better than tap water either- much of it comes from municipal sources. Dasani and Aquafina for starters. It just uses up more resources and creates more trash to distribute all those tiny plastic bottles (which can leech chemicals into the water you are drinking).

 

[sophocles07]

So public schools are better than nothing? Do you know this? I think that is a dangerous assumption. Public schools (at least here in Florida) are paid for through property taxes and lottery sales.

I mean “BETTER THAN SELLING CRACK”.

What if there were no public schools? Well taxes would be lower and money that was going into the lottery might go to local businesses instead. The increased spending would create more jobs for these uneducated folks.

Yeah, but you’d have a completely uneducated public.

Perhaps instead of a generic public school education, we would see the rise of vocational based training, with workers receiving less overall schooling, but they would be getting specialized job specific skills.

If we were ants, I’d agree to this alternative. But, since we’re humans in a democracy, I think any system that trains humans like ants is going to continue down the bad, ignorant road we are on now (i.e., electing Bill Clinton, Bush, etc.). Public schools are not at all adequate at the present either.

Also, vocational training already exists in the kind of way you mean to a large extent. They have vocational classes at most public schools, then those who went into those areas of study take more specialized courses at technical schools.

This "infectious disease" argument is viewed by some as an obstacle for free market solutions but Robert Murphy provides a rather elegant solution. In the case of infectious disease, it would be the incentive of the insurance companies to provide free vaccination or treatment even for the uninsured. These insurance companies are incentivized financially to keep their customers from getting sick (through a system of payouts for health issues that arise). Since the marginal benefit from providing service even to the uninsured (through positive externalities) exceeds the marginal cost, even the uninsured can get a base line level of health care. Specifically, since infectious diseases transmitted by uninsured people can affect customers who are insured, these companies have an incentive to eliminate easily transmitted diseases in general.

Let’s just say I doubt it would go this “elegantly” in reality; leaving things up to greedy insurance companies really is a sad response to a situation.

 

[BirdsAreWild]

Universal HealthCare IS WRONG and why

Before there were laws requiring people to wear seat belts sometimes there would be an accident and someone would end up on the government medicaid program due to their medical expenses. Well one day a politician looked at some statistics and realized that the "government" could save money if they required people who could end up on the medicaid program to wear seatbelts. The problem with that was there would be no way to "police" which people were required to wear seatbelts as they had no way of knowing which citizens had health insurance and long term care insurance to take care of theirself in the event of a catastophic injury. The answer to that problem? Let's just require everyone to wear them.

If we were to have national healthcare it would not be long before some "politican" looked at some statitics and decided that a lot of people who chewed bubble gum got TMJ. Now mind you not everyone who chews bubble gum gets TMJ but if they could save some "government" money then maybe nobody should chew bubble gum. Would you want to give up the right to chew bubble gum occassionally because some people that chewed bubble gum had TMJ?

How about this scenario? Microwaved popcorn can cause a deadly lung disease (http://www.webmd.com/news/20070905/microwave-popcorn-linked-to-lung-harm) so now if we have government controlled healthcare lets just make a law that nobody can have microwaved popcorn. Now would it be fair to deprive the population that eats microwaved popcorn say 3 or 4 times a year because the popcorn addicts get a disease? No it would not be fair but it would be what eventually happens with a government run healthcare program.

Another reason that we don't need government run healthcare is that there are many people in the country who can afford health insurance but have opted to not buy it. With a national healthcare program they will be forced to buy it. If you think that your taxes are high now just look to Canada and see what they pay in income tax because of healthcare programs.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/tools/default.htm

A 29 female with 2 children who earns 35,000 pays 17,469 in taxes. That is over 50% of her income paid to a government. Do you think that US citizens who make 35,000 can afford to pay 17,500 to the federal government?


Now look at the amount of time that people have to wait just to get surgery for gall bladders: http://www.swl.hlth.gov.bc.ca/swl/s...WaitListBySurgSpecNLF?IHospital=603&IEvent=63
Notice that the times listed there are for WEEKS, not days like you are accustomed to in the United States.

The wait time for bypass surgery is 25 to 187 days. Wonder how many people die during that period of time?

The wait for an ultrasound in the USA is 0 days and in Manitoba can be as high as 70 days. Boy, I sure hope you don't need that ultrasound quickly so that something can be fixed before it has to be re-broken to fix it. http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/waitlist/diagnostic/ctcat.html

If you want healthcare the best option would be to get an additional job and buy it. If you think that a premium of $400 a month is too much to pay then how are you going to feel about paying over 50% of your income just to have national healthcare?

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[FamilyForRonPaul]

Before there were laws requiring people to wear seat belts sometimes there would be an accident and someone would end up on the government medicaid program due to their medical expenses. Well one day a politician looked at some statistics and realized that the "government" could save money if they required people who could end up on the medicaid program to wear seatbelts. The problem with that was there would be no way to "police" which people were required to wear seatbelts as they had no way of knowing which citizens had health insurance and long term care insurance to take care of theirself in the event of a catastophic injury. The answer to that problem? Let's just require everyone to wear them.

If we were to have national healthcare it would not be long before some "politican" looked at some statitics and decided that a lot of people who chewed bubble gum got TMJ. Now mind you not everyone who chews bubble gum gets TMJ but if they could save some "government" money then maybe nobody should chew bubble gum. Would you want to give up the right to chew bubble gum occassionally because some people that chewed bubble gum had TMJ?

How about this scenario? Microwaved popcorn can cause a deadly lung disease (http://www.webmd.com/news/20070905/microwave-popcorn-linked-to-lung-harm) so now if we have government controlled healthcare lets just make a law that nobody can have microwaved popcorn. Now would it be fair to deprive the population that eats microwaved popcorn say 3 or 4 times a year because the popcorn addicts get a disease? No it would not be fair but it would be what eventually happens with a government run healthcare program.

Another reason that we don't need government run healthcare is that there are many people in the country who can afford health insurance but have opted to not buy it. With a national healthcare program they will be forced to buy it. If you think that your taxes are high now just look to Canada and see what they pay in income tax because of healthcare programs.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/tools/default.htm

A 29 female with 2 children who earns 35,000 pays 17,469 in taxes. That is over 50% of her income paid to a government. Do you think that US citizens who make 35,000 can afford to pay 17,500 to the federal government?


Now look at the amount of time that people have to wait just to get surgery for gall bladders: http://www.swl.hlth.gov.bc.ca/swl/s...WaitListBySurgSpecNLF?IHospital=603&IEvent=63
Notice that the times listed there are for WEEKS, not days like you are accustomed to in the United States.

The wait time for bypass surgery is 25 to 187 days. Wonder how many people die during that period of time?

The wait for an ultrasound in the USA is 0 days and in Manitoba can be as high as 70 days. Boy, I sure hope you don't need that ultrasound quickly so that something can be fixed before it has to be re-broken to fix it. http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/waitlist/diagnostic/ctcat.html

If you want healthcare the best option would be to get an additional job and buy it. If you think that a premium of $400 a month is too much to pay then how are you going to feel about paying over 50% of your income just to have national healthcare?

That is right! It should be our choice! NOT forced upon us. I am so sick of so many of our rights being taken away. Universal healthcare is just another big step in the wrong direction for freedom!!! Money is already being "stolen" out of our paychecks for social security, medicare, etc.... I never gave them permission to take this money and it should be my right to opt out. Universal healthcare is just another way for them to steal more money that they have no right to take! It also puts more power into the wrong hands.

 

[BirdsAreWild]

Nothing wrong with making dumbasses wear seat belts. Why should someone have to go to jail for vehicular manslaughter just because the dick wasn't wearing his seat belt?

What does vehicular manslaughter have to do with someone not wearing their seatbelt and ending up needing medical care?

How about we go by the Constitution and make it so universal health care is done via an amendment saying no bills can alter it? That'll make it nearly impossible to switch it.

What part of the Constitution says universal health care?

Why the hell should those people pay nothing and when something does come up, get insurance and go to the doctor?

Many of them don't go but the ones that do are the ones that we have created a welfare state for.

You must not have a job if you actually think they pay that much. Even if you live in CA or NY you don't pay that much. Also, this is with all those useless spending that I'd like to get rid of.

Actually I do have a job and apparently you don't. I did not post a link to US taxes but to what people in Canada pay because they have universal healthcare.

That's an asinine argument. How about we actually let the 150000 people that get rejected each year in nursing programs and let people who want to go to doctor programs go in them. Duh. How about we hire less teachers and make classes bigger with one less grade.

What does nursing programs and doctor programs have to do with this. Are you one of those people who was not smart enough to get into a nursing program or doctor program?

 

[Banana]

Maybe someone can tell me:

The inherent problem I see with any kind of insurance is that insurance is at its best when the conditions are true:

1) The pool is large in ratio of payee to claims.
2) The pool has more healthy people than sick people.
3) The overhead is small

It would then follow that in a single payer system, we have the best insurance possible, because everyone is paying into the pool with single administration system. We wouldn't have that in decentralized, privatized system, and if we didn't require people to pay their share, insurance companies would be stuck with people in general poor health with nothing to show for it other than jacking up the premiums.

Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

[BirdsAreWild]

Banana,

The problem with a single payer system is that the incentive to lower costs is gone. If you could only buy bread at one store do you think the cost of it would go down?

Currently the US government mandates that anyone over 70 years old enrolls in government controlled healthcare (Medicare) whether they need it or not. There are many seniors who have private insurance and don't want government mandated healthcare because many physicans don't accept it. The reason that many physican's don't accept it is that the government only pays them about 24% to 45% of what they charge.

Any single payer system would take away the rights of people to make there own decision on the type of plan they had and they would have no way of controlling the premium costs. Currently if you have a plan and the costs gets too high then you can shop for a new plan that has a lower cost. If you are in a position that you can't get a different insurance plan it is because you are using the benefits and it is right that you should pay more for your coverage.

Health insurance is kind of like car insurance in that there are many people who don't think they need it until after an accident.

It always amazes me when someone calls me and says that they want to buy health insurance because they are having a baby in a couple of months or they were just diagnosed with a problem. I have to tell them that they are out of luck because you can't buy coverage after the fact. That would be like trying to buy car insurance after you had a car accident.

 

[BirdsAreWild]

Banana,

I forgot to mention that overhead is not small. The overhead will be a lot higher with a single payer government system. The government employees that administer the program would be paid more than the private companies pay employees. Then you must factor in the employment benefits such as retirement programs for them and where do you think the money for that would come from? Your paycheck of course.

It is widely known that our government is not cost conscious when it comes to spending our money. Government programs spend like they have money to burn and that they can just raise a tax a bit here and there, create a new fee for something, charge for a new permit, etc. constantly to feed the voracias appetite of the spending.

Anything that feeds like that will eventually suck the blood out of their host, and in this case the host would be the american public.

Who will fund a universal health program 10 years from now? Will the seniors work until they die to pay taxes for this or are we going to expect our children and grandchildren to pay our medical bills because we were not personally fiscally responsible for our own benefit? If you think so then maybe you should pay the bills for your parents now and get an idea of how much that will take away from your finances.

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[BirdsAreWild]

You would be surprised at how many people do actually go to the doctor and then call to get insurance. I know this for a fact as I get about 6 calls a year about this.

 

[BirdsAreWild]

People need to get more educated about insurance and realize that they are not invincible. If they would be more responsible for theirself and buy insurance it would lower the cost a bit but forcing people to buy it is wrong.

I am not in favor of paying for a national health care plan. If people want a national health care plan just so they can have insurance there will be a lot of people who stop working when they get something for "free" because they don't really understand that things that the government give people are never "free". Someone pays for them.

 

[Banana]

Banana,

The problem with a single payer system is that the incentive to lower costs is gone. If you could only buy bread at one store do you think the cost of it would go down?

Currently the US government mandates that anyone over 70 years old enrolls in government controlled healthcare (Medicare) whether they need it or not. There are many seniors who have private insurance and don't want government mandated healthcare because many physicans don't accept it. The reason that many physican's don't accept it is that the government only pays them about 24% to 45% of what they charge.

Any single payer system would take away the rights of people to make there own decision on the type of plan they had and they would have no way of controlling the premium costs. Currently if you have a plan and the costs gets too high then you can shop for a new plan that has a lower cost. If you are in a position that you can't get a different insurance plan it is because you are using the benefits and it is right that you should pay more for your coverage.

Health insurance is kind of like car insurance in that there are many people who don't think they need it until after an accident.

It always amazes me when someone calls me and says that they want to buy health insurance because they are having a baby in a couple of months or they were just diagnosed with a problem. I have to tell them that they are out of luck because you can't buy coverage after the fact. That would be like trying to buy car insurance after you had a car accident.

Banana,

I forgot to mention that overhead is not small. The overhead will be a lot higher with a single payer government system. The government employees that administer the program would be paid more than the private companies pay employees. Then you must factor in the employment benefits such as retirement programs for them and where do you think the money for that would come from? Your paycheck of course.

It is widely known that our government is not cost conscious when it comes to spending our money. Government programs spend like they have money to burn and that they can just raise a tax a bit here and there, create a new fee for something, charge for a new permit, etc. constantly to feed the voracias appetite of the spending.

Anything that feeds like that will eventually suck the blood out of their host, and in this case the host would be the american public.

Who will fund a universal health program 10 years from now? Will the seniors work until they die to pay taxes for this or are we going to expect our children and grandchildren to pay our medical bills because we were not personally fiscally responsible for our own benefit? If you think so then maybe you should pay the bills for your parents now and get an idea of how much that will take away from your finances.

Thanks for the informative post. I'm afraid that I'm still hung up with the ideas I posted about.

Let's say the single payer system is private (e.g.a monopoly), would we have a lower price because we have large pool, with all people, whether sick or healthy, paying into this?

Insurance can't work if we have a pool of sick people. It'd go bankrupt when they make a claim run. Likewise, they can't work if the pool is too small for the claim/premium ratio.

I do not deny that government is very wasteful and will end up bungling up everything, but the whole concept of insurance, to me, seem to be dependent on having big enough pool, and having enough of healthy person supporting the sick people. Anything short of that, then it's just more complicated system of basically paying out of your pocket, no?

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[sophocles07]

When did I ever say it should be an anarcho-capitalist society?

Dare I say it was IMPLICIT in what you’ve said thus far?

Yeah, I know statism doesn't make sense.

As far as anarcho-communism goes, I don’t think this even makes sense, or betrays your limited understanding of the ideology. As far as I know, anarcho-communism is essentially a stateless society. You then could have various mutations of how that would look, varying from local cooperation to larger “more federal” type settings.

But anyway, anarcho-communism has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Do you love public education? Do you want to know WHY ghettoes are shit? Not because government has turned their back on the inner city, no, no, no. The inner city is where the government spends most of our money, the inner city IS the government, the government runs the inner cities! So you want the same corrupt system to provide your healthcare? You're cattle. You're a slave of the system. Citizens are just tolerated because they can produce for the state, the only people government officials care about are the special interests that fund their campaigns every election cycle. Ever see the side of police vehicles, "serve and protect." yeah, to serve and protect the state. Like any mafia, the police are there to keep the people under control (weather they know it or not) and to follow the hegemony hierarchy. The slaves keeping the slaves in line.

Be aware I have not voiced support for socialized medicine; I’ve said we need an answer that’s not “let the government do it” but also not “take care of your fucking selves, countrymen.” These two seem extremes, both reactionary and naive, which won’t work.

Your ideas on the “inner city” are simple-minded. The idea that the government sends money to the inner city in any real way—I don’t mean “hire cops to jail the drug dealers” kind of money—is ridiculous.

Even the people with no insurance are taken care of through private or public charity.

If you actually believe this...wow, you are not in touch with the realities of the situation at all.

 

[johngr]

Exactly ToryNotion.

Communist just have problems with people being rich. They think the only fair way to do it is if every one is equal and dragged down to the low standard of the poor. However, this just drags down the standard of living for the general population.

They have no problem with the super rich, in fact, they were set up and funded by them. They play the "proles" against the "bourgeoisie" in an effort to take wealth and power from both and transfer it to their benefactors.