Universal Healthcare

[nightlight]

Ok, first off, this is not a question from me, but someone I know.

Basically, they want to know why Universal Healthcare is a bad idea...

To see that it is a bad idea, you need only look at who is paying off the lawmakers and bureacrats to impose it on us -- it is the Big Pharma which is the driving force behind it. The reason they are pushing it is that it squeezes the alternative medical practices out of business.

Namely, once govenment takes over the health care, they decide what are the medicines and procedures the will pay for (with the money they first took from you; you didn't imagine they will earn it by producing something, did you?). That means you are stuck with the Big Pharma/Big Med scheme. For any alternative, you would have to pay twice, first into the socialized med fund, then pay on your own separately for any alternative that doesn't profit the Big Pharma.

In other words, more overhead (from the new wasteful bureaucracies), less health care choices for you, with greater part of the decisions taken over by the corrupt government offiicials and the special interests that keep them bought. Basically, the generally useful resource aggregation when done in competitive free market with competing compinies keeping each other in check, becomes in socialized medicine a monopoly with government muscle as its enforcer.

Further, once they start paying for it (with your money), they will start telling you how to live, what and how much to eat, what to inhale what not to inhale, when to go to bed and how long to sleep, what and how to exercise,... all in the name of saving on medical costs. It's a recipe for a gradual enslavement across all aspects of your life.

To get a clearer idea of the absurdity of such schemes, just imagine government imposing socialized food production and distribution in cooperation with the few big food manufacturers. Everyone gets "free" meals as selected by bureaucrats and prepared by the few big food companies paying them off. Just go to a prison or a school cafeteria to see what kind of gourmet food that approach yields. The same goes for medicine.

 

[Brutus]

"People who think "helping people" on a wider or even "universal" basis would make doctors "slaves" is absurd."

Okay, then you are making the people you steal from to pay the doctors slaves.

 

[Brutus]

ANYTHING handled, paid for, regulated or subsidized by government gets more expensive relatively, and has lower quality than what is available in the free market.

The more government is involved the more expensive it gets. Medicine is too important to let the people who've spent us into a $60 trillion debt handle it. It is too important to let the people who ran the Katrina response handle it. It is WAY to important to let the people who handled the Bay of Pigs handle it.

 

[Paul10]

...

 

[SeanEdwards]

No one would eat healthy and exercise if there was no motivation to do so. This provides that motivation(without the intervening hand of government) to have a productive and robust society.

Did you bother to read the link I included? A 23 year old woman goes to the emergency room to complain of back pain. Two days later she is dead with her lungs eaten away.

That was in spite of receiving medical care. And how exactly does this 23 year old woman qualify as 'weak' or 'unfit'?

No amount of healthy living will protect you from catching incurable TB, or malaria, or dengue fever, or west nile virus, or flesh rotting staph. These are real, dangerous microorganisms, and they don't care about libertarian political philosophy.

We, as a nation, spend trillions on deploying world-destroying weapon systems in order to "keep us safe". My argument is that dealing with the threat of these contagious diseases is every bit as important to our security as chasing some cave dwelling camel-jockeys. If we can appropriate taxes to pay for a military, (including military doctors), then surely we can appropriate taxes to pay for a functional medical system here at home. Cut one nuclear sub from the defense budget if neccessary, that should about cover the cost for the whole country.

 

[SeanEdwards]

"People who think "helping people" on a wider or even "universal" basis would make doctors "slaves" is absurd."

Okay, then you are making the people you steal from to pay the doctors slaves.

Does paying taxes for a fire department and police make you a slave?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Just go to a prison or a school cafeteria to see what kind of gourmet food that approach yields. The same goes for medicine.

Prison food is infinitely better than no food at all.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

sorry that i dont have time to go into detail, but tell him to watch 20/20 Sick in America on you tube

Sorry you did not have time, but this video showed nothing!

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

Could anybody tell me, what is the definition of health care which America has now?

 

[therealjjj77]

Did you bother to read the link I included? A 23 year old woman goes to the emergency room to complain of back pain. Two days later she is dead with her lungs eaten away.

That was in spite of receiving medical care. And how exactly does this 23 year old woman qualify as 'weak' or 'unfit'?

No amount of healthy living will protect you from catching incurable TB, or malaria, or dengue fever, or west nile virus, or flesh rotting staph. These are real, dangerous microorganisms, and they don't care about libertarian political philosophy.

We, as a nation, spend trillions on deploying world-destroying weapon systems in order to "keep us safe". My argument is that dealing with the threat of these contagious diseases is every bit as important to our security as chasing some cave dwelling camel-jockeys. If we can appropriate taxes to pay for a military, (including military doctors), then surely we can appropriate taxes to pay for a functional medical system here at home. Cut one nuclear sub from the defense budget if neccessary, that should about cover the cost for the whole country.

What you are saying is that the free market is incapable of dealing with these types of issues. That the government is the best solution. I would disagree with that.

 

[SeanEdwards]

What you are saying is that the free market is incapable of dealing with these types of issues. That the government is the best solution. I would disagree with that.

Do you think the free market is the best option for a justice system? If the free market is the ultimate best solution for every problem, then why don't we have a free market system for military defense, or government for that matter?

I don't know that what we have now in healthcare can be called a 'free market' system, but whatever you call it, it isn't working. Any system that leaves millions of people with no access to medical care is non-functional.

I think, in light of the reality of the dangers of infectious diseases, that health care should not be regarded as an entitlement, but a duty. Just like people are denied the liberty of building property that presents a fire danger to the community, so should people be denied the liberty of infecting their community with infectious diseases. In a way, it is about property rights. Your right to be free of socialized medical care is not allowed to trump my right to have my body not be infected by diseases that you may carry.

If a real free market in medicine can guarantee everyone access to medical care, then fine, bring it on. However, I am not convinced that is the case, and I think that most likely the best solution will be some kind of mixed system that permits private health care, while also ensuring some minimum standard of access to everyone.

Just like every child is guaranteed some minimum access to a public school system while still allowing for private schools. I think we need the same kind of thing in healthcare.

 

[sophocles07]

Her pulmonary blood vessels were eaten away by bacteria, and she drowned in her own blood

God damn.

Historically diseases have always succeeded best at taking out the weakest in a population. This ensures a stronger population. The ones who usually go are those who are eating unhealthy or abusing substances or are already having health difficulties.

So this acts to eliminate earlier(since everyone will die) those who are of poorer health, and ensures a more healthy next generation.

Is that such a bad thing?

This is all absolutely ridiculous.

Okay, then you are making the people you steal from to pay the doctors slaves.

But they get to use the medical system, no?

This is why charity doesn’t help: you’re not even willing to pay taxes to help someone who will die without medical aid; why in the world would you voluntarily become a “slave” (this word means almost nothing if it can be employed in the way you use it) to help someone?

aka:

Does paying taxes for a fire department and police make you a slave?

What you are saying is that the free market is incapable of dealing with these types of issues. That the government is the best solution. I would disagree with that.

People who support a “free market’ in these areas make me nervous. You’re essentially allowing for people who are primarily interested in profits to handle issues of life and death, and justice and other civic issues (if you do take SeanEdwards suggestion, and extend this line of thought into these areas).

 

[misterbig]

Do you think the free market is the best option for a justice system? If the free market is the ultimate best solution for every problem, then why don't we have a free market system for military defense, or government for that matter?

Funny that you bring up this topic. Robert P. Murphy wrote about this subject in his short essays titled "Chaos Theory: Two Essays On Market Anarchy".

Murphy writes:

"The following essays show that the two most crucial 'functions' of government - law and defense - can be efficiently supplied on the free market. The State is thus shown to be completely unnecessary. Anarchy, the absence of coercive government, must not be confused with chaos."

The full text of the essays:
http://www.mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

 

[misterbig]

I don't know that what we have now in healthcare can be called a 'free market' system

We do not have a free market health care system, because only businesses who provide a health plan may take a tax deduction for cost of health care. This effectively increases the cost of shopping around for health care services and limits competition (since a given employer has an exclusive arrangement with one health care provider for its employees). It is impractical for employees to quit their job and find a new job with an employer who is affiliated with a better health plan. Therefore, consumers cannot shop around. This is not a free market.

but whatever you call it, it isn't working. Any system that leaves millions of people with no access to medical care is non-functional.

It is definitely not working. The reason more and more people are left without access to medical care is because the costs are being driven up through bad regulatory policy.

Just like every child is guaranteed some minimum access to a public school system while still allowing for private schools. I think we need the same kind of thing in healthcare.

LOL you aren't really claiming that public schools are in any way successful now, are you? *chuckle*

 

[sophocles07]

LOL you aren't really claiming that public schools are in any way successful now, are you? *chuckle*

Is it not better to get even the very sorry education public schools offer than leaving kids on the streets to do "other" things?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ok, first off, this is not a question from me, but someone I know.

Basically, they want to know why Universal Healthcare is a bad idea (this guy is a devout socialist who's so devout he's called a "communist" by his friends)...basically I'd like some very well thought out posts against it, and, if possible, some videos explaining why it's a bad idea (socially as well as economically).

Why doesn't he go to Cuba? Damn socialist. Let's call it by its REAL NAME, SOCIALIZED MEDCINE! Crap? Yes. Better than what we have? Sure. Socialized medicine is crap compared to free market medicine. Why don't we have freemarket medicine instead?

 

[misterbig]

Is it not better to get even the very sorry education public schools offer than leaving kids on the streets to do "other" things?

Well I guess if you set the bar low enough then you could say "public schools are working".

 

[sophocles07]

Well I guess if you set the bar low enough then you could say "public schools are working".

I didn't really mean that they "work" (I hated public schools, and learned only the bare minimum from them), but still...it's better than nothing.

NOT saying that should be an answer to education either. The "revolution" part of Ron Paul's message really should be emphasized: it's going to take a lot more than mere "tinkering" to reform these things. And I don't understand how the somewhat vague "let the markets work" answer works in response to the vast complexities involved in setting the society straight.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I didn't really mean that they "work" (I hated public schools, and learned only the bare minimum from them), but still...it's better than nothing.

NOT saying that should be an answer to education either. The "revolution" part of Ron Paul's message really should be emphasized: it's going to take a lot more than mere "tinkering" to reform these things. And I don't understand how the somewhat vague "let the markets work" answer works in response to the vast complexities involved in setting the society straight.

Better than nothing? Is that the rationale for socialism nowadays?

 

[SeanEdwards]

Better than nothing? Is that the rationale for socialism nowadays?

When you've got nothing, just about anything is an improvement.