The Case Against Universal Healthcare
- Thread starter lovemeorhateme
- Start date
PureX
Well-known member
I agree, but I have to ask WHY he bought it 'lock, stock, and barrel'? And I think the answer is because that's the way he WANTS things to be. He wants people to suffer and die in poverty.
I don't know if anyone has brought this up or not, but it's a lot more cost effective to deal with preventative maintenance than it is to fund emergency room care.
The Preamble to the Constitution includes "promote the general Welfare" as part of the federal government's responsibilities and the Supreme Court has already ruled that federal government's involvement in healthcare ("Obamacare") is constitutional.
The private sector has had over 200 years to demonstrate that it is capable of providing affordable healthcare, especially for those with pre-existing medical conditions and yet 62% of all personal bankruptcies in the US are health related and 50 million citizens remain uninsured.
As for the government driving up costs, America already has the dubious honor of having the most expensive healthcare system in the world ( Liberia and Sierra Leone excluded) at 17.90% GDP (2011).
Canada provides universal healthcare for all its citizens yet manages to spend 6.7% GNP less than the US - meanwhile the average Canadian lives 2.11 years longer than his/her American counterpart (CIA World Factbook).
Despite having one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the world, America ranks only 42nd in life expectency (79.56 years, 2014).
Last edited:
Tyrathca
New member
That's hardly straight forward, where does emergency response for into that? You said earlier that it could still be the domain of government and that it was vastly different to the rest of healthcare, but you seem to leave no room for it here nor have you clarified what you even consider "emergency response".
Are ambulances to be privatized? Emergency departments? Do people in massive multi-trauma accidents count or only those in disaster zone? What about massive heart attacks? Saying it's simple doesn't make it so, it just make you look like an ignorant idiot.
It's also in Article I, section 8, part of the description of Congress's powers.
| The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; |
:yawn:
When you're prepared to respond rationally to what I say, let me know. :thumb:
Actually, it is. Working out the details might not be easy, but using that is just an argument from consequence.
And we've seen the results of doing it your way. Every failure of the healthcare system we see can be chalked up to its socialization.
Tyrathca
New member
So your argument is to privatising healthcare but now you concede that not ALL healthcare should be privatised (you've said "emergency response" can be government) but you've given no benchmark for where that line would be drawn or even why.... Sounds quite arbitrary to me and for that matter leaves a potentially very large and expensive portion of healthcare in government hands no less!
You're not very bright are you Stripe?
Besides if you're going to include "emergency response" (whatever that may be) why not also include "urgent response" or "would be nice to have done soon response"? :chuckle: Why one and not the other? ("Stripe says no" is not an answer FYI).
Failure? Seems to me that my country's healthcare system is rather good, it's not perfect but it certainly better than systems that have far more privatisation (*cough* USA *cough*). Excuse me if many of us remain sceptical when you claim that if only it were even more privatised it's efficiency would go up again (without evidence) when we have a well evidenced solution of less privatisation being better (are you claiming a bimodal distribution of healthcare effectiveness?)
That's because you consistently refuse to engage on the fundamentals of what I say. You pick on details because you know you can camouflage the fact that you have no substantial counter to my ideas.
And you haven't got a rational argument. :idunno:
Stripe said:
Comprehension is not your strong suit, is it?
Tyrathca
New member
I agree, I'm hiding under the camouflage of your gross ignorance and stupidity. You caught me...
Says the person who won't make an argument more complex than a slogan.
No I comprehend very well that you don't understand what you are talking about. Unfortunately you seem to lack any insight into your limitations.
You repeating ad nauseam that government is bad at healthcare does not turn the statement into evidence. Pretending that healthcare is simple and can be neatly (and cheaply) divided into "emergency response" and "everything else" is foolish. Acting like a child about it all, well that's just your regular MO isn't it Stripe?
Tinark
Active member
"Necessary" is completely subjective. Government does what we want it to do.
And the right-wing meme of "the system's efficiency necessarily decreases and costs necessarily increase" with government involvement is a false one that has been ingrained into your head by right-wing pundits. Name one economist who makes such a claim.
There is something called a market failure that are well studied. Market failures mean that the market will not lead to the most efficient outcome.
Two of these involved in health care are information asymmetry (the doctors/sellers of the medical services have an information advantage compared to the person buying the service), and adverse selection in the insurance market (another form of information asymmetry) - individuals know more about themselves than an insurance company does, thus, those who know they are more prone to sickness, unhealthy lifestyles, etc., will purchase insurance, while those who are healthy will not - therefore, the insurance companies will raise rates, making it more likely that average health people will now find that the insurance is not worthwhile, making the insurance companies raise rates still more.
Finally, "efficiency" isn't the end all be all goal of everything. A child with poor parents being killed by treatable type 1 diabetes is "efficient" from an economic perspective. Is that the kind of society you want, brutal efficiency? Apparently so.
genuineoriginal
New member
Those two words were not meant to give the Federal government carte blanche.
_____
Philanthropy
The Founders held philanthropy to be effective only when done by an individual citizen or private organizations. Indeed, the Founders believed that charitable giving sprang from virtue within each individual, or in other words, moral excellence within each person. The Bible says, “It is better to give than to receive,” and this tenet was the bedrock of society to the Founders. They saw no role for government in the area of philanthropy.
Philanthropy
The Founders held philanthropy to be effective only when done by an individual citizen or private organizations. Indeed, the Founders believed that charitable giving sprang from virtue within each individual, or in other words, moral excellence within each person. The Bible says, “It is better to give than to receive,” and this tenet was the bedrock of society to the Founders. They saw no role for government in the area of philanthropy.
Indeed, Thomas Jefferson said, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated" (Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, June 16, 1817).
According to many leading scholars today, the “General Welfare Clause” of the U.S. Constitution has caused some writers to claim that the Founders thought government should be intimately involved in each citizen’s well-being. Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, imposts and Excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”James Madison agreed with Thomas Jefferson: "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators" (James Madison to James Robertson, Jr., April 20, 1831).
_____so where’s my free government food, clothing, housing and transportation?
It is necessarily true, in fact. When the government assumes control of day-to-day operations of a societal system, the system necessarily becomes less efficient and more expensive.
This observation is blindingly obvious; you asking for evidence to support it is like asking for evidence if I had said the sky is blue.
Nope.
If the government does not do military, whichever body does run it will be in control.
:chuckle:
I love it when evolutionists defeat their own irrational arguments.
And the markets you are looking at are all dominated by government regulations. No wonder they fail.
Sounds like insurance companies are ultimately a complete waste of time. :idunno:
:yawn:
Evolutionists are drawn to irrational nonsense like a moth to a flame. They are incapable of constructing any argument without them.
I think the bottom line is that the Founders recognized that however they felt about it at the time, it was dangerous to bind Congress's hands too much. Why put in such a vague provision unless you simply recognize that you can't envision all of the possibilities that the future holds? And the courts have generally upheld pretty broad interpretations of it.
Ask Congress.
I can't answer the poll. I believe universal healthcare should mean affordable healthcare, not necessarily free except in situations which require additional qualification.
Tyrathca
New member
I already told you that repeating a claim ad nauseum doors not make it evidence.
I will agree that in many areas the free market is better than government. However it is not true of all area and we actually have an idea of the characteristics which make something amenable to market forces. Most of the time some minimally intrusive regulations keeps maintain the needed balance of forces. Occasionally they fail spectacularly without heavy intervention however and myself and others have already described some of the reasons why marker forces fail with regard to healthcare (not that you read anyway...)
Yes, it's so blindingly obvious most of the world disagrees with you. Even much of your own country disagrees with you.
Besides the evidence that you are obviously wrong is blinding anyway. Some of the most efficient healthcare systems are the most government controlled. So unless you are claiming done sort of bimodal distribution of efficiency (which you aren't) you're just blowing hot air.
So you've said the same thing a number of times hoping I will change what I believe, right?