The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[rexlunae]

so what?

they're not uncovered

Yes, they are. They might be able to help, if they are lucky. And if so, they are likely to be bankrupted by the process.

 

[Stripe]

The consequences of not having universal healthcare are far worse than the consequences of having it.

Arguments from consequence are irrational. You need to give a rational argument.

What do you think should happen to those who cannot afford healthcare?

Nothing should "happen" to them. People should be free to save their money as they think best suits their health needs.

In the rare situation where that is not enough, they might be forced to ask for help.

However, the government's involvement in this process necessarily makes it less efficient and more expensive.

What I don't understand is how people see this as so much different from paying for insurance.

Because people are free to choose whether they get insurance or not, and if they do get it, they are free to choose what level of insurance suits them.

People should be free.

 

[resodko]

Yes, they are. They might be able to get help, if they are lucky.

as i said, here in nys, nobody is turned away from a non-profit hospital based on a lack of ability to pay

if they were, the hospital would be cited by jcaho

 

[resodko]

What do you think should happen to those who cannot afford healthcare?

:think:

Spoiler

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Arguments from consequence are irrational. You need to give a rational argument.

I've given rational arguments throughout this thread.

As previously stated however, if one does not know the consequences of what one is arguing for or against then how can one dogmatically stick to one position or the other?

Nothing should "happen" to them. People should be free to save their money as they think best suits their health needs.

In the rare situation where that is not enough, they might be forced to ask for help.

However, the government's involvement in this process necessarily makes it less efficient and more expensive.

From what I'm hearing, that situation doesn't seem rare. Healthcare is expensive. In the US it's more expensive than anywhere else.

Countries with universal healthcare generally have better healthcare systems which actually cost less per head than in a country such as the US without universal healthcare. You keep saying that if the government is involved that makes healthcare less efficient and more expensive, yet the evidence points to that not being the case.

Because people are free to choose whether they get insurance or not, and if they do get it, they are free to choose what level of insurance suits them.

People should be free.

A poor person is free to choose to get insurance they cannot afford, right?

As for that last part, that depends on what you mean by "free". I would argue that everyone should be free to get the healthcare they need.

 

[Stripe]

If one does not know the consequences of what one is arguing for or against then how can one dogmatically stick to one position or the other?

Because they are based upon right, good and just principles.

From what I'm hearing, that situation doesn't seem rare. Healthcare is expensive. In the US it's more expensive than anywhere else.

Nope. Healthcare would have cost me pretty much nothing all my working life had the governments not demanded I pay into their wasteful schemes.

Countries with universal healthcare generally have better healthcare systems which actually cost less per head than in a country such as the US without universal healthcare. You keep saying that if the government is involved that makes healthcare less efficient and more expensive, yet the evidence points to that not being the case.

Who is more capable of determining their own healthcare needs: A man, or a government the man pays taxes to?

A poor person is free to choose to get insurance they cannot afford, right?

A poor person would have access to the money he did not have to pay to get healthcare he might never use. You cannot dismiss what I hold as a good system by pretending the outcomes of your system apply to mine.

 

[Granite]

What I don't understand is how people see this as so much different from paying for insurance. With insurance they pay the company though they may barely even need to use their policy. It's just supposed to be there for them when they are sick (if the insurance company doesn't try and worm its way out of paying a claim). Inevitably with insurance, some people will end up claiming more than they have paid in. That means those who haven't needed to claim are paying for somebody else's healthcare, right? How is that so different from universal healthcare? The difference is that one pays the government as their insurance rather than a private, for profit company and everyone is covered. This system also helps prevent profit-driven companies from looking for any way to deny someone's insurance claim.

Fundamentally there is very little difference. Keep in mind these are the same people who have zero problem with their taxes paying for waterboarding or illegal wars.

Freedom seems to mean something different in the US compared to here in the UK and Europe.

Genuinely curious, but what does the word (you think) mean in Europe and the UK? Frankly when most Americans use the word I really don't have a good handle on what they mean, or what they think they mean.

Where does this actually come from? Why are those who are supposed to be believers in God and in the Bible so indifferent to the plight of the poor? I just cannot understand. In the UK Christians were at the forefront of social reform.

Maybe an intrinsic Puritanical sort of work ethic that sees poverty as punishment? I honestly don't know. A lot of factors seem to inform this attitude.

How do you think this sickness is best combated?

Not sure. For a start we can expose it from the money-grabbing misanthropic borderline sadism it is.

 

[rexlunae]

as i said, here in nys, nobody is turned away from a non-profit hospital based on a lack of ability to pay

I'll admit, I don't really know what the state of New York does. But the closest non-profit clinic to where I live is more than 50 miles away, and I'd bet it doesn't have enough capacity to cover the need.

if they were, the hospital would be cited by jcaho

For routine medical visits, or for emergency care?

 

[Tyrathca]

as i said, here in nys, nobody is turned away from a non-profit hospital based on a lack of ability to pay

if they were, the hospital would be cited by jcaho

What does this actually entitle someone to? If someone shows up to hospital how urgent does something be to trigger this requirement?

 

[Caino]

In the past I've always been an advocate for universal healthcare here on TOL as many of you know. Coming from a country which has universal healthcare, it baffles me that so many would be against such a system.

Instead of presenting the case here as to why I believe in universal healthcare, I thought it would make a more interesting thread to invite those of you who disagree with universal healthcare to present your case as to why you believe it is wrong.

What do you believe about the principle of healthcare which is free to all at point of need? Why do you have that belief? Do you believe that those who cannot afford it should be entitled to less healthcare than those who can? What do you believe is the correct Christian view on it?

In America the VA system is an example of what national health care would look like here.

 

[rexlunae]

In America the VA system is an example of what national health care would look like here.

The VA fails to do its job precisely because it serves a limited population. It doesn't impact most people, so most people don't care.

 

[PureX]

In America the VA system is an example of what national health care would look like here.

No, it's not.

There are many ways to achieve good quality universal health care. And there are many nations that stand as examples of these various ways of doing it. Here in the U.S. we already have universal health care for seniors; it's called Medicare. And we even have universal health care for some eligible non-seniors; it's called Medicaid. And both of these are working pretty well for those they serve. So all we'd really need to do is expand them to include everyone, and focus on minimizing the rampant price-gouging in the system. And then we, too, would have a good, functional universal health care system.

The big difficulty in the U.S. is that the medical industry, the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry are all able to bribe our legislature to stop it from effectively reforming our health care system, and they do so because they want to avoid the imposition of price limitations any way they can. So that until we put a stop to the legalized bribery of the Congress and the Senate, we will never have universal health care, and we will continue to pay double what everyone else on the planet pays for their universal health care. And we will continue paying through the nose for lousy health care in this country because of all the price-gouging going on in our unregulated captive market system.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Fundamentally there is very little difference. Keep in mind these are the same people who have zero problem with their taxes paying for waterboarding or illegal wars.

That's what I thought. In both systems they are relying on those who don't get sick to pay for the treatment of those who do. It does seem to be that these people have no problem with taxes paying for what they want. But as soon as their taxes help others with something like healthcare it's 'communism' and those people should 'get off their lazy backsides to pay for their healthcare'.

Genuinely curious, but what does the word (you think) mean in Europe and the UK? Frankly when most Americans use the word I really don't have a good handle on what they mean, or what they think they mean.

I would say that freedom here doesn't mean freedom from government. It means freedom of speech, assembly, thought and conscience. In the US, it seems to be that freedom means freedom from government.

Maybe an intrinsic Puritanical sort of work ethic that sees poverty as punishment? I honestly don't know. A lot of factors seem to inform this attitude.

It seems to be something like that! Yet I genuinely believe everyone would be better off under a universal system.

Not sure. For a start we can expose it from the money-grabbing misanthropic borderline sadism it is.

That it is. There is nothing humane about a for profit healthcare system that seeks to deny healthcare at every opportunity. I've been reading up a lot on the US healthcare system recently, and I've been mortified by many of the things I've read.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Because they are based upon right, good and just principles.

Please do explain what is right, good or just about allowing people to suffer needlessly when we have the ability to do something about it. lain:

Nope. Healthcare would have cost me pretty much nothing all my working life had the governments not demanded I pay into their wasteful schemes.

Do you have insurance or government provided healthcare?

Who is more capable of determining their own healthcare needs: A man, or a government the man pays taxes to?

In a universal system, the government doesn't determine one's healthcare needs. You feel ill, you see the doctor. The doctor determines your needs based solely on medical diagnosis with no regard to how much money you do or don't have.

A poor person would have access to the money he did not have to pay to get healthcare he might never use. You cannot dismiss what I hold as a good system by pretending the outcomes of your system apply to mine.

Those poor people huh? It's so terrible and such a heinous sin to help them, isn't it? I don't think for a moment that the outcomes of universal healthcare apply to a private, for profit system. On the contrary, I hold the system you defend as arbitrary, cruel and utterly inhumane.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

In America the VA system is an example of what national health care would look like here.

Which is not an argument against the principle of healthcare which is free to all at point of need.

 

[Stripe]

That's what I thought.

There is a massive fundamental difference; people can choose to pay insurance as they see fit.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

There is a massive fundamental difference; people can choose to pay insurance as they see fit.

They can choose to pay for private insurance here in the UK too, though most don't see the need to. As part of my research into different healthcare systems, I looked at private insurance in the UK. I can honestly say now that I could not afford it, and I would not get cover for my prexisting conditions. Working full time on the minimum wage, I would be bankrupt very quickly and could not get the healthcare I need for treatment of asthma and severe atopic dermatitis. So I use the system I pay into with no copays, deductibles or anything of the sort.

Do you think people should be denied healthcare if they cannot afford to pay for it?

 

[Stripe]

They can choose to pay for private insurance here in the UK too, though most don't see the need to. As part of my research into different healthcare systems, I looked at private insurance in the UK. I can honestly say now that I could not afford it, and I would not get cover for my prexisting conditions. Working full time on the minimum wage, I would be bankrupt very quickly and could not get the healthcare I need for treatment of asthma and severe atopic dermatitis. So I use the system I pay into with no copays, deductibles or anything of the sort. Do you think people should be denied healthcare if they cannot afford to pay for it?

Hold on a second, buddy. You said you could not understand why people see universal healthcare as different from paying for insurance.

The difference is that people can choose whether they get insurance or not.

It's called liberty. If I choose to not get flu shots, I should be free to not pay for them. If I choose never to see a doctor, I should be free to not pay for them.

 

[This Charming Manc]

The cult on individualism...

That may be fine but what the consequences for the others in society you live in ?

Let them pay for there own healthcare? let them choose, let them function in there own individual bubble?

If they can't afford its not you fault, you are only responsible for you and your family.

They should have worked harder, been brighter, been more privileged, had English as first language, not been black or poor or different, there parents should not have had a drug problem, he should not of had that heart attack, or been born disabled.

Yeah you look after your own, let the others sort themselves out.

Jesus wants them all to be self reliant, that's what he said ...

Hold on a second, buddy. You said you could not understand why people see universal healthcare as different from paying for insurance.

The difference is that people can choose whether they get insurance or not.

It's called liberty. If I choose to not get flu shots, I should be free to not pay for them. If I choose never to see a doctor, I should be free to not pay for them.

 

[rexlunae]

It's called liberty. If I choose to not get flu shots, I should be free to not pay for them. If I choose never to see a doctor, I should be free to not pay for them.

The only freedom Stripe cares about is the right to die destitute on the street.