The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[Stripe]

Seeing firsthand how such a system works well...

Begging the question is a logical fallacy.

The system in Taiwan does not work well. It has resulted in a bloated health fund that is losing ever-increasing amounts of money and taught a generation to be hypochondriacs — seeking medical attention for anything and everything.

The hospitals seeth with people who are in no desperate need of the facilities and their staff are overworked and underpaid. Unless a doctor has a top position in one of the public hospitals — Taipei's new mayor left one to enter politics — he will earn nothing near what he might deserve, leading to many professionals seeking work in private clinics or overseas.

...denigrating it...

I hadn't denigrated it. It pays to actually know what you are talking about when you want to mock somebody. :mock: Gaynit.

...just clinches for me why I put him on ignore.

One wishes that you were actually capable of ignoring me. Instead, you will take any opportunity you find to belittle and lie about me, even going so far as to slur my wife. You're a hypocrite and a coward hiding behind a polystyrene wall. :loser:

Stripe is fundamentally and consistently dishonest.

Said the second-biggest liar on the site.

He enjoys the fruits of a system he trashes, then tries to speak to authority about American affairs he knows nothing about.

Which means you will be able to find material I have posted previously about either nation's healthcare system, right?

This thread is an open question from an international poster who asked a general question. That you morons have resorted to dismissing what I say because of where I live shows that you have no rational response to my points.

When you are ignorant and pretend to have a reason to berate me, you're without any excuse.

Meanwhile, it is necessarily true that when a government takes over a system, it will be more expensive and less efficient.

 

[Tyrathca]

Meanwhile, it is necessarily true that when a government takes over a system, it will be more expensive and less efficient.

Meanwhile Stripe continues to believe if you say something enough times that makes it true.

Is your confidence founded on anything other than your ego and self righteousness? If this is some fundamental law of nature or economics like you talk about it then what is it called? Who proved it and how?

Meanwhile the rest of us won't believe that government will always make a system more inefficient for the many different reasons already outlined.

 

[Stripe]

Meanwhile Stripe continues to believe if you say something enough times that makes it true.

Nope. It's necessarily true. If a system is taken over by the government, the system will necessarily become more expensive and less efficient.

Is your confidence founded on anything other than your ego and self righteousness?

My confidence is as irrelevant to this conversation as is the fact of where I live. When you're ready to engage rationally, let us know. :up:

If this is some fundamental law of nature or economics like you talk about it then what is it called? Who proved it and how?

What something is named, and who showed it and how he showed it are likewise irrelevant.

When you're ready for a rational discussion, let us know. :thumb:

Meanwhile the rest of us won't believe that government will always make a system more inefficient for the many different reasons already outlined.

Your reasons are based on anecdotes that do nothing to address the fundamentals.

Tell us: Which would be cheaper and more efficient?
A) A man works and decides for himself what healthcare he will pay for, or
B) A man works and pays the government to provide universal healthcare, including for himself.

Which would be cheaper and more efficient?

 

[Tyrathca]

Nope. It's necessarily true. If a system is taken over by the government, the system will necessarily become more expensive and less efficient.

Meanwhile Stripe continues to believe if you say something enough times that makes it true....

My confidence is as irrelevant to this conversation as is the fact of where I live. When you're ready to engage rationally, let us know. :up:

I know your confidence is irrelevant but that is all you offer. When you are interested in engaging in rational discussion rather just repeating claims without substance, let us know. :up:

What something is named, and who showed it and how he showed it are likewise irrelevant.

How they showed it, as in why we even know it is true, isn't relevant?

I guess it's not necessarily true because t's actually true, it's necessarily true because it's truth is necessary to prop up your ideology/belief system. If you cared about ACTUAL truth you would think that how we know it is true to be very relevant...

When you're ready for a rational discussion (you know, the type where people explain themselves with reasoning and evidence), let us know. :thumb:

Your reasons are based on anecdotes that do nothing to address the fundamentals.

Ummm no.... my reasons (which others have said similar) are based on economic principles regarding how well free markets work and the evidence of application around the world. You on the other hand just repeat a statement that no one else believes, you are actually just begging the question.

Tell us: Which would be cheaper and more efficient?
A) A man works and decides for himself what healthcare he will pay for, or
B) A man works and pays the government to provide universal healthcare, including for himself.

B

A will in the short term be cheaper while a person is young, healthy and not requiring much services. However in the long term costs will exponentially increase and will make disincentives for early access and primary prevention (driving up long term costs). Also the general man will not understand healthcare sufficiently to prioritise healthcare needs or assess quality adequately. Particularly in the event that unexpected urgent healthcare is needed the person (or insurance provider if they for some reason actually got covered for everything) would be unable to bargain a fair price and efficient price due to time (and knowledge) constraints. A fails because most of the ways where free markets would normally lead to increased efficiency aren't actually able to occur.

 

[Stripe]

How they showed it, as in why we even know it is true, isn't relevant?

That's right. You have a brain for a reason. :up:

You ... just repeat a statement that no one else believes, you are actually just begging the question.

Nope. A single assertion can never involve a case of begging the question.

And sneaking in more arguments from popularity will not help you.

A will in the short term be cheaper while a person is young, healthy and not requiring much services. However in the long term costs will exponentially increase and will make disincentives for early access and primary prevention (driving up long term costs). Also the general man will not understand healthcare sufficiently to prioritise healthcare needs or assess quality adequately. Particularly in the event that unexpected urgent healthcare is needed the person (or insurance provider if they for some reason actually got covered for everything) would be unable to bargain a fair price and efficient price due to time (and knowledge) constraints. A fails because most of the ways where free markets would normally lead to increased efficiency aren't actually able to occur.

Nope. You've just pretended that a government can do a lot of planning that a man cannot. It's an attempt to dodge the necessary truth: A man can plan for increasing costs and overcome disincentives for early access and primary prevention. He can understand healthcare sufficiently to prioritize it and assess quality properly. He can plan for the unexpected.

A) does not fail, it would teach people to be more responsible.

A) fails because most of the ways where free markets would normally lead to increased efficiency aren't actually able to occur.

Only because you deny the possibility that a man could learn to fend for himself and not rely on the government.

If the government were to stop taxing people to pay for healthcare and people started thinking about what they needed, why on Earth would you believe that companies would not arise to cater to what people want?

B

Nope. It is necessarily true that the government bureaucracy will increase the cost and decrease the efficiency.

 

[jgarden]

Why U.S. hospital administrative costs are among the highest in the world: 7 things to know
September 08, 2014

An analysis of eight countries with various types of healthcare systems has found the U.S. has the highest hospital administrative costs, according to a study published in Health Affairs.

Researchers analyzed data from Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the U.S. Administrative costs made up 25.3 percent of total hospital spending in the U.S., more than any of the other countries studied and more than twice the percentages for Canada and Scotland, which had the lowest administrative expenditures. Here are seven things to know about hospital administrative costs in the U.S. and why they're significantly higher than other countries' spending.

http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...he-highest-in-the-world-7-things-to-know.html

- administration costs ranged from 0.41 percent of GDP or $158 per capita in Canada to 1.43 percent of GDP or $667 per capita in the U.S

- within the U.S., for-profit hospitals also had greater administrative costs (27.2% of hospital spending) compared with their nonprofit (25%) and public (22.8 %) counterparts

- administrative spending rose from 23.5% of total hospital spending in 2000 to 25.3% in 2011. By contrast, hospital administrative costs in Canada fell from 12.9% in 1999 to 12.4 percent in 2011

- countries such as the U.S. and Netherlands must also negotiate payment rates with multiple payers with differing billing procedures and documentation requirements, driving up administrative spending.

- researchers concluded that reforming the U.S. healthcare system to a single-payer model would result in significant administrative savings. Reducing U.S. administrative spending to the level of Canada or Scotland per capita in 2011 would have saved $158 billion or $156 billion, respectively

Other than his own personal conservative ideological biases, perhaps "Stripe" can enlighten us as how he came to the conclusion that "It is necessarily true that the government bureaucracy will increase the cost and decrease the efficiency" when the research shows that quite the opposite is true!

At present the US is spending far more on healthcare as a % of GDP that nations with universal systems - and yet without Obamacare 50 million Anericans would be uninsured.

In addition, universal healthcare systems, like the one in Canada, have no user fees or co-payment fees.

 

[Stripe]

Perhaps "Stripe" can enlighten us as how he came to the conclusion that "It is necessarily true that the government bureaucracy will increase the cost and decrease the efficiency..."

Perhaps you can learn to read. :thumb:

Tell us: Which would be cheaper and more efficient?
A) A man works and decides for himself what healthcare he will pay for, or
B) A man works and pays the government to provide universal healthcare, including for himself.

...when the research shows that quite the opposite is true!

You looked at a government-funded system to get those numbers.

At present the US is spending far more on healthcare as a % of GDP that nations with universal systems - and yet without Obamacare 50 million Anericans would be uninsured.

In 10 years, as the US government takes more control of the healthcare system, the GDP ratio will increase. Just as it has done for any other nation.

In addition, universal healthcare systems, like the one in Canada, have no user fees or co-payment fees.

I guess everything there is free. :idunno:

And notice that you are talking about administrative costs, not actual healthcare.

 

[jgarden]

For "Stripe" a conservative ideology "trumps" the facts and we are all supposed to commit an act of faith and put our trust in him - despite the fact that he is neither willing and/nor able to produce any research that would substantiate his claims.

Administration costs are an integral part of any healthcare system, unless "Stripe" is suggesting that patient care be moved out on the street under a street light.

Administration in private US hospitals is 27.2% of total costs and more than double of those in Canada. In addition, Canadian hospital administration costs are decreasing while those in the US they are continuing to climb.

The reality is that there are universal healthcare systems, all field tested, operating for decades that the US could readily adopt, provide care for all of its citizens and at a fraction of the cost that it is currently being spent.

The problem is those vested interests that are financially wed to the current system who have grown fat by taking the Amercian healthcare hostage.

 

[Stripe]

For "jgarden," his ideology trumps the facts and he refuses to consider fundamental truths. The fact is that what I say is necessarily true: A system taken over by the government will become more expensive and less efficient. Fact.

Administration costs are an integral part of any healthcare system unless you are planning on providing patient care out on the street under a street light.

Nope. I am able to cover all my healthcare needs even if the government were not taxing me and paying others to double up on the work. And a private enterprise could cater for anything that might arise that I cannot deal with.

No streets or streetlights, though those are probably a part of a necessary function of government.

Administration in private US hospitals is 27.2% of total costs.

Which shows that wages are good in the US. Bringing administration costs down and making everything "free," as you are demanding the government do, will drive people away from healthcare roles, diminishing the industry's quality.

 

[jgarden]

For "jgarden," his ideology trumps the facts and he refuses to consider fundamental truths. The fact is that what I say is necessarily true: A system taken over by the government will become more expensive and less efficient. Fact.

Nope. I am able to cover all my healthcare needs even if the government were not taxing me and paying others to double up on the work. And a private enterprise could cater for anything that might arise that I cannot deal with.

No streets or streetlights, though those are probably a part of a necessary function of government.

Which shows that wages are good in the US. Bringing administration costs down and making everything "free," as you are demanding the government do, will drive people away from healthcare roles, diminishing the industry's quality.

1. "Stripe" has yet to produce any research to support his ideologically biased contention that "A system taken over by the government will become more expensive and less efficient. Fact."

2. "Stripe" also contends that he is currently "able to cover all my healthcare needs ..."
Given that over 50% of all personal bankruptcies are healthcare related and that many of those were insured, nobody can state categorically that they have the financial means to meet all the medical costs that they or their family might incur in the future.

3. High costs are no guarantee of quality. At present there is a 10:1 ratio of "medical tourists" leaving the country for medical care (10 Americans leave the country for medical care for every person that comes to the US for health reasons). Many of these foreign medical centers have received international accreditation and their doctors US trained.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe has yet to produce any research to support his ideologically biased contention that "A system taken over by the government will become more expensive and less efficient. Fact."

"jgarden" hates reading.

 

[Tyrathca]

That's right. You have a brain for a reason. :up:

Classic "me no need no evidence, me think me true so me true!" Stripe....

Nope. You've just pretended that a government can do a lot of planning that a man cannot. It's an attempt to dodge the necessary truth: A man can plan for increasing costs and overcome disincentives for early access and primary prevention. He can understand healthcare sufficiently to prioritize it and assess quality properly. He can plan for the unexpected.

If we were not talking about healthcare you would probably be right, but we are talking about healthcare so your not.

While SOME would be able to plan ahead most would not as they would lack sufficient knowledge to do so. Few would be able to assess the quality of anything other than common routine medical care without already having a background in medical science or healthcare. Sure if a single issue is known well in advance of treatment required those some people of above average intelligence would be able to research sufficiently to get a usable grasp but those most would flounder in their attempts at research (particularly the elderly, those most in need of care), even the gifted would be unable to get a grasp of a sudden new issue if it needed urgent treatment.

A) does not fail, it would teach people to be more responsible.

Dead people don't learn.

Only because you deny the possibility that a man could learn to fend for himself and not rely on the government.

I don't deny it, in fact I am generally pro free market, but I deny it is reasonable to expect this when it comes to issues such as healthcare.

If the government were to stop taxing people to pay for healthcare and people started thinking about what they needed, why on Earth would you believe that companies would not arise to cater to what people want?

Learn to read. The problem is has never been whether companies will form to provide a service.

Nope. It is necessarily true that the government bureaucracy will increase the cost and decrease the efficiency.

:blabla::blabla::blabla:

 

[Stripe]

Classic "me no need no evidence, me think me true so me true!" Stripe....

Nope. You wanted to know the source of what I believe as if it were relevant to the truth of what I believe. You have a brain. If you think what I say cannot be true, explain your reasoning, as I have explained my position.

If we were not talking about healthcare you would probably be right, but we are talking about healthcare so your not.

Perhaps you can tell us why people are incapable of planning for emergencies. :idunno:

Why does there need to be a government-funded agency that makes all those decisions?

While SOME would be able to plan ahead most would not as they would lack sufficient knowledge to do so. Few would be able to assess the quality of anything other than common routine medical care without already having a background in medical science or healthcare. Sure if a single issue is known well in advance of treatment required those some people of above average intelligence would be able to research sufficiently to get a usable grasp but those most would flounder in their attempts at research (particularly the elderly, those most in need of care), even the gifted would be unable to get a grasp of a sudden new issue if it needed urgent treatment.

That's why we have experts who can be turned to. I would expect everyone who is serious about healthcare to consult an expert.

Why do you think there needs to be a government-run system for there to be expert medical advice available?

Dead people don't learn.

However, those who see a man die because of folly or ignorance might learn from his mistake.

I don't deny it, in fact I am generally pro free market, but I deny it is reasonable to expect this when it comes to issues such as healthcare.

Then show us a good reason. :up:

Learn to read.

:chuckle:

The problem is has never been whether companies will form to provide a service.

So what is the problem then?

If the service is available and people have money to pay for it, why does there need to be a government bureaucracy that forces people to get healthcare coverage?

Why should people not be free to choose for themselves what level of medical coverage they want? Why should they have to pay for what they do not want? Why is a necessarily more expensive and less efficient system required?

 

[Word based mystic]

I don't want to pay for others that eat poorly, overeat, do not exercise, drug and alcohol abusers.

that is not what my taxes need to go to.

My wife and I have been advocates for the poor in several small cities.

as we started counseling and taking advocacy positions, we were amazed how the entitlement mentality caused the present generation to use the system to (not) work
And then was constantly going to the hospitals for everything from a headache to an upset stomach.
as we taught healthy eating i was amazed at how little to NObody responded to the teaching. "We have medicaid, the doc will fix us or give us meds if something comes up" was the most frequent comment.

obesity and lack of nutrition is by far the biggest cause for most of modern day medical problems.

the poisons of soda and sugar diets are destroying our present and next generations.

the thought process is their as to free health care and welfare produces dependency to entitlement programs and does not encourage pursuit of a career or a healthy lifestyle.

bad foods and junk foods are cheap.
the poor have little option but to buy junk. and thus makes health worse.

their is no right to health care.

charity organizations and increased tax benefits for charity related donations is the answer.

not another poorly administered government program.
((show me a well administered government organization other than military))

charity with high tax write off benefits is a better option.

I can give as i choose and choose a well run charity organization with health and nutrition focuses.

 

[whitestone]

I think the reality check position will eventually kick in universal healthcare. That is from a position of churches,non profit organizations ect. who donate millions each year to give to the needy eventually they will need to ask themselves a very real question.,,,"why do I still need to donate to the needy?"

Which at first seems unkind,unfair ect. but when you change the T.V. from channel to channel you come across commercials asking for donations for cancer research,funding for needy children(children's hospitals)ect.,,,,(I'M NOT MEANING THIS AS UNKIND OR INSENSITIVE) ,,,but contemplate this from another angle.

If you were a deacon,pastor ect. in a church and you at the end of the month have an extra amount of money you would like to donate to the needy(say a million dollars/any sum) and you then think "where should I give?" then this will occur to you when you see the pictures of the children in the commercials. "WHY WOULD YOU NEED TO DONATE TO HELP WITH RESEARCH/MEDICAL EXPENSES FOR THE NEEDY IF THEY ARE COVERED UNDER THE HEALTH CARE ACT AND ALL OF THEIR EXPENSES ARE ALREADY BEING PAID FOR?",,,

Again it seems as though I'm insensitive toward these needy people but remember we are about 3 years into universal health care and either the people/persons in these adds are either on government type medical coverage or if they or their parents make to much money a year they are required to purchase insurance,(BUT EITHER WAY THEIR MEDICAL BILLS ARE BEING PAID),,,so why are they still asking for money in addition to and after these bills are being paid under the U.H.A.?,,,,where's the money going to?

 

[Stripe]

I don't want to pay for others that eat poorly, overeat, do not exercise, drug and alcohol abusers.

Exactly. :thumb:

Liberals will argue that you have to pay for these people because there are people in genuine need. However, they miss the point that it is the individual who is best placed to judge where there is need and meet it.

A government-run system will not be able to judge rightly. It will make regulations that people will learn to exploit and those in need still suffer because of the inefficiency and waste.

 

[Word based mystic]

throwing money at a problem so you can feel good about yourself is not good stewardship

a taxation/government program solution will only bankrupt the country.

It is in the nature of people to find the least resistance to obtain a need.

this above statement is what has destroyed the preceding generations addicted to welfare and it's programs

most of the young ladies we would advocate for would have more children so that their checks would increase.
if they get a job their benefits would go away.
if they got married their benefits would halve or disappear.
The next generation of children learn to work the system and brag about it.

only a few youth and young adults broke this cycle after years of doing advocacy work.

people are less likely to work hard and take care of their own bodies if they believe their health care is free and they can get an easy fix with a pill or a free surgery to clean out the plaque out of their arteries or inject insulin at age 14.

this is idiocy and poor stewardship of the generations that are addicted to welfare and entitlement programs.

this is probably the worst scenario in this country that can happen. It will discourage healthy living and demotivate self reliance.

educate and assist the entitlement addicted, by teaching them empowerment and a vision for their life and their families.
Show them what scripture has to say about life and health and how righteous living produces life and life abundantly.

 

[Stripe]

Churches, nonprofit organizations ect. who donate millions each year to give to the needy; eventually they will need to ask themselves a very real question: "Why do I still need to donate to the needy?"

Government-run healthcare robs people of the opportunity to see needs in society and meet them. It teaches people that it is the government's job to care for the sick.

 

[Word based mystic]

Government-run healthcare robs people of the opportunity to see needs in society and meet them. It teaches people that it is the government's job to care for the sick.

yes. exactly it takes the church and the individuals conscience out of the picture.

the more individuals assist and love in a get dirty time and love way, the healthier our society will be and the more the races and the different classes will see that people/individuals care.

love response and actions bring peace to the races and classes of society.

the government should empower individuals and charity/churches to do the administration of charity.

ronald reagan had it right in the point of lights programs.

 

[whitestone]

Government-run healthcare robs people of the opportunity to see needs in society and meet them. It teaches people that it is the government's job to care for the sick.

Yes, the thought behind universal health care is that since all contribute then all receive a system where the medical bills are actually being paid in full(or affordable). Now though we are several years into U.H.C. and where we would think if this was working then the "needy of health care" would no longer exist. The fact that there still are those not with either government supplied healthcare or self purchased is reflected by the fact that donations to cover medical bills are still in need. Or,we are paying into a system that is suppose to be writing out checks to pay these bills and are not.

In most convalescent homes/nursing homes ect. and other similar type establishments preachers/church members ect. on weekly and daily visits often speak to members/deacons ect. from other Churches. After a while discussions about charity workshops ect. will come up. So if one preacher gives the example of "paying someone in needs light bill",and they exchange ideas and realize someone is going to his Church and asking for help(and they pay their lights),and the other Church says "for last month?,so did I!",,,it wouldn't take long for this to end.

At the same time the two examples beside one another are exactly the same. One is an example of a person who is taking their bill to Church A and asking for money,and then going to Church B and showing them the same bill and asking them to pay it. The other is a system that states health care universally(first payment of bill),,,and then taking the same bill to a "needy response program" and asking them to pay the same bill(second payment of bill),,,lol,but no one noticed that.