The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[annabenedetti]

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 be self reliant, that's what he said ...

Well said.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

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.

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think people should be denied healthcare they need if they cannot afford it?

Here's another question: Do you think that people should be left at the mercy of insurance companies who will do anything and everything they can to deny claims in the name of profit and the almighty dollar?

 

[Stripe]

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

Gee, your arguments are watertight, aren't they? lain:

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think people should be denied healthcare they need if they cannot afford it?

I wasn't trying to answer your question.

Here's another question: Do you think that people should be left at the mercy of insurance companies who will do anything and everything they can to deny claims in the name of profit and the almighty dollar?

Hold on. You do recognize the fundamental difference between universal healthcare and insurance, right?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I wasn't trying to answer your question.

Hold on. You do recognize the fundamental difference between universal healthcare and insurance, right?

Indeed, with insurance one chooses whether or not to pay a private, for-profit company. Even if one does pay for it, that is not a guarantee that one will get the treatment they need when they actually come to claiming on their policy.

With universal healthcare, everyone pays for it in the form of taxes but it is not done for profit, it is done for the benefit of the people.

I would still like to know your answer to the question I posed. Do you or do you not believe that those who cannot afford healthcare should be denied healthcare?

 

[rocketman]

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.

The concept of liberty seems to escape the left leaning in this thread. If a person chooses (liberty) to not use a service, they don't have to pay for a service. In the entitlement mentality a person has no right to choose, must pay for the service regardless of participation (no liberty). Seems crystal clear to me...

 

[lovemeorhateme]

The concept of liberty seems to escape the left leaning in this thread. If a person chooses (liberty) to not use a service, they don't have to pay for a service. In the entitlement mentality a person has no right to choose, must pay for the service regardless of participation (no liberty). Seems crystal clear to me...

I certainly don't feel that my liberty is in any way infringed or diminished by having a universal healthcare system. I believe there is a higher principle at stake here, and that is one of individualism vs compassion for your fellow man.

As already pointed out, if you decided you didn't want anything to do with the fire service you would still have to pay for it. You are not free to refuse to pay for it, yet I don't see anyone calling for the abolition of a socialised fire service... :think:

 

[rocketman]

I certainly don't feel that my liberty is in any way infringed or diminished by having a universal healthcare system.

Of course you don't, I on the other hand believe that forced participation in social programs is an infringement upon my liberty to choose how I want to deal with my personal healthcare.

I believe there is a higher principle at stake here, and that is one of individualism vs compassion for your fellow man.

I see that, I feel it is a personal responsibility not a corporate one.

As already pointed out, if you decided you didn't want anything to do with the fire service you would still have to pay for it.

I guess if I had that choice, I would have the liberty to opt out now wouldn't I but, it is not a choice to participate in fire protection, therefore I pay it, as I do law enforcement another of many services I pay for without a choice.

You are not free to refuse to pay for it, yet I don't see anyone calling for the abolition of a socialised fire service... :think:

I see your point but, disagree as it relates to healthcare, I pay for what I want/need period...I know what I get going in, I cannot be denied because I pay for it (liberty)...not so when someone else is paying ie. the government (no liberty). That is the difference and one I am not willing to give up and I assure you most in America feel the same way...it is seen as personal responsibility not a corporate one.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

Of course you don't, I on the other hand believe that forced participation in social programs is an infringement upon my liberty to choose how I want to deal with my personal healthcare.

With a universal healthcare system, you have the choice on how to deal with your healthcare. The difference is that everyone has access to healthcare; rich or poor, young or old. Do you think it acceptable that in the richest country in the world, many people cannot get the healthcare they need? Do you think it acceptable that people are denied treatment due to the lack of ability to pay?

I see that, I feel it is a personal responsibility not a corporate one.

I feel that if we don't do something to help the sick, it ultimately hurts us all so it's not just about individual responsibility. The healthier a society the more productive it is.

I guess if I had that choice, I would have the liberty to opt out now wouldn't I but, it is not a choice to participate in fire protection, therefore I pay it, as I do law enforcement another of many services I pay for without a choice.

Would you advocate for the choice to not pay for your socialised fire service and police force?

I see your point but, disagree as it relates to healthcare, I pay for what I want/need period...I know what I get going in, I cannot be denied because I pay for it (liberty)...not so when someone else is paying ie. the government (no liberty). That is the difference and one I am not willing to give up and I assure you most in America feel the same way...it is seen as personal responsibility not a corporate one.

You can certainly be denied treatment by an insurance company you have paid for years over a technicality in the small print. Private insurance companies reward their staff for denying claims to people for often arbitrary reasons even if it will result in death. Does that sound humane to you?

The US seems to be able to find the money to go into endless wars, killing people. So why are people so resistant to the thought of a healthcare system which benefits all, not only those who can afford it? To quote former British MP Tony Benn when speaking on the British Government's position on healthcare after World War II: 'If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people'.

There is often little objection that I see to the government using money to purchase and build bigger and bigger weapons, finding ever more creative ways to kill people. Yet the moment someone suggests money could be used to help others it is decried as 'socialism' or 'communism' and an 'infringement on my personal liberty'. Why is that? And why is it that the people at the forefront of supporting money being spent on killing rather than helping others in the USA are often those who are Christian?

 

[Stripe]

With universal healthcare, everyone pays for it in the form of taxes but it is not done for profit, it is done for the benefit of the people.

However, a government-run system is necessarily more expensive and less efficient than individuals choosing for themselves what healthcare options they want.

So if the benefit of the people is your main concern, wouldn't it be better to support individual responsibility?

Do you or do you not believe that those who cannot afford healthcare should be denied healthcare?

This is an emotional question that distracts from a rational analysis of reality. I'll let you decide for yourself how you think I would respond to the rare situation where a man cannot afford to pay for medical care that he thinks he needs.

Therefore I pay it, as I do law enforcement another of many services I pay for without a choice.

The difference between healthcare on one hand and on the other law enforcement and emergency response is that the latter are necessary functions of government. The government must enforce the law, and the government must restore order and protect people and infrastructure. There is no obligation on the government to make sure everyone gets a flu shot.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

However, a government-run system is necessarily more expensive and less efficient than individuals choosing for themselves what healthcare options they want.

Yet statistics have demonstrated many times that the US healthcare system is the most expensive and one of the least efficient in the world. Almost every country with universal healthcare has cheaper and more efficient healthcare. The evidence does not back up your claim.

So if the benefit of the people is your main concern, wouldn't it be better to support individual responsibility?

The only way to guarantee everyone has equal access to healthcare is through a system which all contribute to. Individual responsibility fails people.

This is an emotional question that distracts from a rational analysis of reality. I'll let you decide for yourself how you think I would respond to the rare situation where a man cannot afford to pay for medical care that he thinks he needs.

On the contrary, this is a very pertinent question to the subject at hand. I get the impression you would support denying healthcare to those in need, but I could be wrong.

It's certainly not a rare situation that a man cannot afford to pay for his healthcare. Maybe from the westernised bubble we live in it can look that way, but there are many countries where people don't have such luxuries.

Let's move away from the western world to a country that I know very well indeed; Uganda. In Uganda, over 50% of the population lives on less than £1 a day. Healthcare is provided through a mix of government run hospitals and charity. Now, as you extol the apparent 'virtues' of a private, for-profit system then tell me: How would such a system benefit the people of Uganda? After all, if your principles are so high and mighty then they should benefit everyone, right?

The difference between healthcare on one hand and on the other law enforcement and emergency response is that the latter are necessary functions of government. The government must enforce the law, and the government must restore order and protect people and infrastructure. There is no obligation on the government to make sure everyone gets a flu shot.

Is not providing healthcare to stop people from dying protecting them? I'm not talking about flu injections here by the way, which even in the British system is an out of pocket expense unless you have a medical condition where getting flu could put your life in danger. I have asthma, which qualifies me for a free flu injection.

 

[rexlunae]

However, a government-run system is necessarily more expensive and less efficient than individuals choosing for themselves what healthcare options they want.

That's an article of faith rather than fact. Otherwise, prove it.

 

[rexlunae]

Yet statistics have demonstrated many times that the US healthcare system is the most expensive and one of the least efficient in the world. Almost every country with universal healthcare has cheaper and more efficient healthcare. The evidence does not back up your claim.

Ah, but you see, this is where he has an escape hatch. He'll simply tell you that the American system isn't any good because it has too much government involvement already. You need a completely sans-government system before the magical cost savings work, for some reason.

There's no way for them to lose this conversation. If the system is broken, even if it's the closest system to the neo-liberal fantasy that exists, it's because there's too much government.

 

[Stripe]

Yet statistics have demonstrated many times that the US healthcare system is the most expensive and one of the least efficient in the world. Almost every country with universal healthcare has cheaper and more efficient healthcare. The evidence does not back up your claim.

No, they haven't.

The only way to guarantee everyone has equal access to healthcare is through a system which all contribute to. Individual responsibility fails people.

So does universal healthcare. Arguments from consequence are irrational. You need a rational reason to support what you believe.

I get the impression you would support denying healthcare to those in need.

Seriously? Why would you say that?

It's certainly not a rare situation that a man cannot afford to pay for his healthcare.

Please don't change what I have said to start a separate disagreement.

Let's move away from the western world to a country that I know very well indeed; Uganda. In Uganda, over 50% of the population lives on less than £1 a day. Healthcare is provided through a mix of government run hospitals and charity. Now, as you extol the apparent 'virtues' of a private, for-profit system then tell me: How would such a system benefit the people of Uganda? After all, if your principles are so high and mighty then they should benefit everyone, right?

You want to increase the tax burden on Ugandans so that they can all get flu shots if they want them?

Is not providing healthcare to stop people from dying protecting them?

Providing healthcare does not stop people dying.

Taking their money away might cause them to die sooner.

I'm not talking about flu injections here by the way.

Yes, you are, as you go on to say. Or else you're not talking about universal healthcare.

That's an article of faith rather than fact. Otherwise, prove it.

Why is water wet?

Which is cheaper and more efficient: For a man to decide how much he wants to pay on his healthcare, or for him to pay the government to decide on what healthcare he gets.

Hint: There's is no question mark on that sentence for a reason.

 

[rexlunae]

Why is water wet?

Oooh, that's deep.

What is a question that doesn't ask anything?

Which is cheaper and more efficient: For a man to decide how much he wants to pay on his healthcare, or for him to pay the government to decide on what healthcare he gets.

The later.

Hint: There's is no question mark on that sentence for a reason.

That's Ok. I'm not grading for grammar.

 

[Stripe]

I'm not grading for grammar.

It shows. :chuckle:

 

[Granite]

Ah, but you see, this is where he has an escape hatch. He'll simply tell you that the American system isn't any good because it has too much government involvement already. You need a completely sans-government system before the magical cost savings work, for some reason.

There's no way for them to lose this conversation. If the system is broken, even if it's the closest system to the neo-liberal fantasy that exists, it's because there's too much government.

Which is interesting considering he doesn't live in this country.:chuckle:

This boils down to a lot of hard-hearted, money-grubbing people who'd cut their noses to spite their face, then go on about how "free" they are.

 

[Stripe]

Which is interesting considering he doesn't live in this country.

It's an international discussion, my response was nothing like what the Moon King suggested and you're a retard. Butt out. :thumb:

This boils down to a lot of hard-hearted, money-grubbing people who'd cut their noses to spite their face, then go on about how "free" they are.

And you have nothing but your hatred and bigotry powering everything you post. :loser:

 

[Tambora]

Providing healthcare does not stop people dying.

Taking their money away might cause them to die sooner.

:up:

 

[zoo22]

Which is interesting considering he doesn't live in this country.:chuckle:

Like I'd posted, he chose to relocate himself to Taiwan, where the socialized healthcare system "tops the expat health care charts."

Taiwan tops the expat health care charts The island offers the cheapest and best medical facilities of any country in the world, according to a new survey.

Nearly seven in 10 expats in Taiwan say they spend less on health care than they used to before moving – compared with a global average of just three in 10.

Meanwhile almost two-thirds say they enjoy a higher quality of health care in Taiwan than they did at home, against a global average of less than four in 10.

Runners-up on the chart produced by HSBC showing affordable and cheap countries in terms of care were the UK, Thailand, Japan and Saudi Arabia.

At the opposite end of the scale, expats in Brazil, New Zealand, Ireland and the USA complained that they have to put up with expensive and poor quality health care.

...

The survey report said: “The Taiwanese health care system is coveted by health care tourists around the world, but its simple rules for expats and provisions for health insurance are what distinguish it from the pack in this year’s survey.

“Upon relocation, all expats and their employers are required to register with the National Health Insurance system, which grants them access to medical and dental care."

full article

Sounds like Stripe made a good choice in moving to a country where he can take advantage of such a good national healthcare plan for expats.

 

[Stripe]

Sounds like Stripe made a good choice in moving to a country where he can take advantage of such a good national healthcare plan for expats.

:yawn:

When you morons have a rational argument, wake me up. Pretending my ideas can be ignored because of where I live is just plain stupid — par for the course for you lot.