Universal Healthcare

[Paul10]

...

 

[Paul10]

..

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

Preventative care although I'd bet a lot of people would be lazy to even get it.

We could have that here without the government involved. Maybe there are barriers the government could lift, maybe consumers need to become more proactive, maybe we have cultural issues beyond the scope of government control that need to be addressed, but there's no reason the private sector can't handle preventative care, and if the government stopped devaluing our dollar and taxing us into the ground a lot more people could afford it than can now.

If you're arguing for Paul's position, then why couldn't they reduce prices and stuff with universal healthcare?

If you're arguing for Paul's position, don't you see the problem in advocating such a massive welfare program that forces people to subsidize others?

And there might very well be some reduction in administrative costs because of universal health care, but there would be other costs that would go up, whether the quality of care or the loss of incentives for innovation, for example, to say nothing of the oversight being done by political bureaucrats.

Under a free market system, consumers and private watchdog groups keep an eye on the industry, while the government is responsible when there are violations of contractual obligations, when misinformation is being spread, etc. In other words, the government is a measure of last resort, and is a separate entity from the provider.

Under a government system, on the other hand, the government is essentially monitoring itself and is the only recourse for holding the system accountable, which in my judgment is a severe (and frightening) conflict of interest. It's the fox guarding the henhouse.

Again, before we jump to a universal health care system, let's at least first look at ways to scale back government in areas where it might be causing some of the issues. Don't try to fix a system of bad policies by tacking on even more policies until you get rid of those underlying problems.

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

I don't know about Paul's position but It definitely is better although I think universal health care can beat his. Whose to say that it's really forcing people to subsidize others? It depends on who gets taxed and income is arbitrary. Insurance companies can be said to subsidize others. Some people never use it while others need it. Since they're pooling money in, the other person subsidized it.

Any tax is force. Voluntary payment, well, isn't. That's the key difference.

Well, neither Paul's or my position will ever be implemented. Paul also wants the states to decide on how to handle health care. That just leads to tons of paperwork. Look at the states when it comes to schools. Superintendents make like 150000+ a year just for calling snow days and evaluating teachers. The bureaucratic crap that goes hand and hand with the states is amazing.

If extra paperwork is the cost of having competition and allowing different communities to tailor their tax/spend systems to their own needs and preferences, then so be it. The possibly reduced administrative costs of having a streamlined national process (which could probably be further streamlined at a supranational level, which I'm even more opposed to) could (and would, in my opinion) be more than offset by the additional social costs imposed on many people by making the system so one-size-fits-all, among other drawbacks.

It will never happen in my lifetime.

Universal health care might not either. Same goes for a Paul presidency. Doesn't mean we don't work for what we believe in.

 

[Paul10]

..

 

[Kludge]

Just make him read some Ayn Rand...

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[huchahucha]

Then why would you support universal health care? That would be a government run monopoly on the health care system.

 

[Paul10]

..

 

[Fox McCloud]

Paul 10, I would like to kindly ask you to stop detracting from the information provided...this is a thread about arguing against a socialist/communist, not arguing for one.

 

[huchahucha]

Depends on how the government implements it. They can do it the right way or they can do it the wrong way. Also, this is different than the monopolies that are most talked about. This is a monopoly where everyone is paying for it automatically and it's completely inelastic. The gov can regulate the price to a lower amount and not limit the supply at the same time i.e. get more nurses in programs and doctors. Hire more physician assistants for lower costs. The government makes the supply of them very low to cause a shortage on purpose. There's natural monopolies and they're considered ok as efficiency goes down if there was more.

Any way the government does it will be the wrong way. The government will make everyone pay into the system, or pay the penalties for not participating. Since everyone will be paid for, everyone will be entitled to the same quality of health care. Since all doctors will now have the same work load, they will all receive the same pay check. Since all the doctors will get the same pay regardless of skill, there will be no incentive to be a really good doctor. All the really good doctors will quit and go be really awesome veterinarians. Now there will really be a need for more doctors, and you are right, there will probably be mass hirings of doctors and nurses. They will just be mediocre doctors and nurses. It will be cost effective though. The government will probably set up a department of health care and their only goal will be to keep prices down. As the work load increases they will have to come up with more creative ways to slash prices by reducing services available, and eventually we will reach the point where everyone is paying into the system and getting just about nothing back in return. That's almost 100% profit!

 

[Zavoi]

What's to say the demand for health care is inelastic? If you're currently healthy, then you'll naturally go with the cheapest health insurance that meets your needs. And the insurance companies, in turn, will always go with the cheapest health care providers that meet their customers' needs. Granted, uninsured people who are already sick will be less willing to shop around for health care, but this should not affect our policy towards healthy people, should it? Of course, this assumes that there is sufficient competition to drive prices down. If we have just enough regulation and bureaucracy to create high barriers to entry and high switching costs, but just enough freedom to allow firms to set prices, then we end up with the worst of both worlds (which is why a Canada-like system may seem appealing to Americans).

Can anyone point to a country with a health care system of the type Ron Paul advocates? Or is the world divided into countries with government health care, countries where people are too poor to afford health care no matter how it's provided, and the United States?

 

[Paul10]

..

 

[stewie3128]

Aaaaand... Paul10 goes on the "ignore" list.

Ron Paul states the issue very well on his issues page. When HMOs were created in the early 70s, so was the artificial and illogical connection between one's employer and their health care. Prior to that, the trend was to pay for regular health services out of pocket (because they weren't all that expensive, unlike now) and carry inexpensive catastrophic health insurance.

With the advent of this unholy union between government, employer and insurance provider, prices have skyrocketed, more or less leaving individuals and families without any option other than to purchase expensive health care insurance.

Additionally, even if your insurance is "provided" by your employer, that is still money you would otherwise see in your paycheck, and it's not an insignificant sum.

On the other hand, heavy government regulation stifles medical innovation. Scientific medical advancement has significantly migrated from Europe to the US over the past 40 years (Andrew Sullivan chronicles this very well on his website) and the difference is the amount of government interference in health care. While we have too much government involvement here in the US, it is magnitudes worse in Europe, hence, the innovation doesn't happen in Europe any more.

 

[Paul10]

..

 

[huchahucha]

Helping people out isn't a good incentive? If more docs are pumped out of medical school, they'll have the same workload basically if there's no shortage. Why would it matter if they get the same pay? Whoopdeedoo, they make a little less since there's no shortage. Why would they want to be a vet? They make on average 70000. A doctor make twice that much for just doing physicals. That's another thing though. With the private sector, you'll have dogs and cats getting better care than people. Can you explain why nurses and docs would be mediocre? That makes no sense at all.

Helping people out isn't a good enough incentive, that is the reason you will end up with mediocre doctors and nurses. Even if you have a top notch doctor that doesn't quit, there is no way to inspire him or her to do their job to their best ability. Why do your job more than half assed for less pay? It's not like they are going to fire you.

You have "inelastic" faith that people will always do their best for the greater good, no matter what the conditions are. I don't know what you do for a living, but if the government came to your place of employment and told you that you will now be working harder for less pay for the sake of the greater good, I'm betting at some point you are going to have some heartburn about that (unless of course you are not that competent at your job, but find that under the new system you get the same credit and paycheck as those that are exceptional at your job).

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[huchahucha]

Malpractice isn't necessarily a possiblity in a government run health care system, because all the government has to do is ban malpractice suits.

As for the other stuff, I said that a government run health care system will ultimately lead to mediocre doctors and nurses (with the exception of a few highly skilled doctors and nurses who have no real incentive to excel at their jobs). You claim that that means I'm saying that all practicing vets, chiropractors, nurses, ex nurses, military doctors, etc. are mediocre. Your argument has waded off into complete bullshit.