Why support Universal Health Care

Post Reply New Topic

This has already been discussed in this short thread.

America has the most-privatised healthcare in the Western world.
America has the least efficient healthcare in the Western world.

There are several ways in which centralised healthcare is more efficient. For example, a single payer has the ability to negotiate prices down lower. Centralisation potentially allows for greater sharing of information - my medical records can easily be accessed by an NHS doctor anywhere in the country with a phone call, but it's much harder for a private practice, particularly if they need to get the information from another private provider.
Whilst public medicine is not immune to this problem, private medicine can promote the expensive medicines of a particular company ahead of the cheaper, better medicines of another company or even off-patent medicines.

National healthcare isn't about supporting government. It's about supporting people. Healthcare tends to be very inefficient unless its either; bargined aggressively by a state, or some sort of mutual aid orginization.

Last edited by RushKing on 13 Feb 2014, 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think it should be both....people should have the right to grow their own, but I don't see anything wrong with selling it in stores and taxing what is sold in stores. I mean I bet there is somewhat of a tax on say tomatoes you buy at the grocery store, probably a bit of tax on the seeds if you go buy those to....but obviously if you grow your own tomatoes there is no tax on those tomatoes. So yeah that is just the way I see it I suppose.

Not sure which country you're from, but an example of a common medical expense like childbirth costs around $18,329 for the old-fashioned way and $27,866 for a C-Section.

You say, "No", and you provide contradictory evidence of the government giving out tons of money to private enterprises to support your opinion.

"Giving out tons of money to private enterprises" is further reasons why the government is inefficient compared to profit-seeking entities.




You never addressed the original assertion.

Talking about Bush, Buddah, and whatever else has nothing to do with centralization of government functions, and the consequential loss of some freedom, based on Washington DC bureaucrats dictating how society should function.

My original assertion restated: is that you give up some freedom to a government worker. (For example, the Department of Education dictating educational standards for the entire country)

This appears to be "intellectual dishonesty". Are you trying to convince yourself that freedom is not lost when it is turned over to a government worker ?



I originally asserted the Medicare tax is rising to pay for Medicare.

Is my assertion truthful or not ?

You responded twice with apparent non-sequitur excuses of a political nature and failed to address the assertion.

This appears to be "intellectual dishonesty". Are you trying to convince yourself that Medicare taxes are not "creeping" as I stated ? Do you fear entering "creeping Medicare taxes" into google, and seeing the truth ?

Under Obamacare, Medicare Double Taxation Begins in 2013
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/under-o ... egins-2013



In prior post you said I was "not telling the truth", and "modified the quote to fit my agenda".

However, after I point out your reading comprehension error, then you apparently drop that argument, and come up an explanation that supports my original assertion that President Obama called Medicare a "ticking time bomb". I agree with your "Bob explanation" , that is the fundamental problem with healthcare, however, it supports what I stated i.e., that Medicare costs are soaring, so you seemed confused.

This appears to be "intellectual dishonesty". Are you trying to convince yourself that president Obama did not state the "ticking time bomb" with regards to Medicare ?

Me
==========
I believe both the Republicans and Democrats are greedy, self-serving people, so your arguments of a political nature won't work on me.
My autism means I study the "order of things". I am what Dr. Grandin labels a "pattern thinker".

My impression of you
===============
You appear to have picked the Democrats as the truthsayers
You appear to be willing to be dishonest to yourself to support the "Democrat ideology"
However, you seem to be able to properly identify problems and accurately determine the problem with health care.
You are clearly intelligent.

This may surprise some of you, but I support universal health care with come caveats. First of all UHC is not so much a right as it is a condition necessary for the proper functioning of our society. The cost of UHC should be thought of as an investment in the future of our society and something that maintains its present well being.

Everyone should have access to a degree of health care that is sustainable by our technology.

But there are some buts.

I propose this covenant:

1. Everyone gets health care sufficient to keep them in good health and in acute situations treat their injuries and illnesses.
2. Everyone has an obligation to maintain his bodily health. That means (1) no overeating, (2) no excess drinking of alcohol,
(3) maintaining healthy weight. That means not only watching what one eats but taking sufficient exercise to keep the parts operating well.

Those who have genetic defects will be treated but they will not be permitted to pass them to the next generation. I am afraid that means the "S" word. Those who by ill luck or bad heredity will be treated and maintained. Those who are lazy and do not work (or volunteer) as some useful or productive activity will be deprived of any treatment that they cannot pay for. This of course excludes children whose main job is to grow up health and learn enough stuff to be useful. They will be maintained by they our are future. Overeaters, gluttons, smokers and drunkards will not receive UHC benefits until they get into shape and change their ways. In the meantime any treatment they get they will have to pay for. No free rides for gluttons, drunkards, bums and people who are careless of their one and only body. Society is NOT a free ride. It is a way of supporting people who live their lives in peaceful and useful ways. Lazy bums, criminals, and people who do not care enough about their own bodies to maintain them will NOT be given a free ride.

That is my view on the matter. I do NOT know how to bring it about. I am assuming that most people if given support and who are clear about their own obligations to themselves (primarily) and to their neighbors (secondarily) will do the right thing and not abuse the support that is there for them

Enough:


ruveyn

It's the fault of those private enterprises that this kind of corruption happens. So why am I supposed to worship them as opposed to wanting them the hell out of the governing process of my country?





And you're willfully ignoring that Obama said the problem was price gouging by hospitals. CNS News? I seriously hope your understanding of every topic of debate doesn't come from Googling some keywords, clicking the first link, and hoping for the best. There's this thing called "Search Engine Optimization." It's a technique used to push certain content to the top of search engine results, even if they're not objective information source you were looking for.

By the way, fun fact: My Google search for: "creeping Medicare taxes" turned up a Fox News article, a blog about Shariah Law sneaking into America, and this very thread.




I gave you the exact quote that he said. You quoted him as saying something different. Then you agreed with my explanation of hospital price gouging before immediately deflecting back to Medicare expenses. As if Medicare expenses and the price of medical care had nothing to do with each other, and the Medicare program was in danger because of, I don't know, The Legion of Doom or the angry ghost of Joseph Stalin.

You're so devoted to this concept that Government=BAD Private Industry=GOOD that it's more or less driven by religious fervor.



Strawman. Republicans are far more flagrant with their pandering to the wealthy. Democrats do it too. For instance, a group of ambassadors just got appointed only because they contributed to Obama's campaign. I wish there was a legitimately leftist group in America devoted to separating money from government. But until that day comes, it might be wise to pick the lesser of the two evils and call the lesser evil out when it does something that is, you know, evil.

When are you guys going to realize that Obama is just another dud. In some ways he is a greater misfortune than was Jimmy Carter. We have not had a decent president in office since Harry Truman.

The US government has very high healthcare spendings as it is. If the mess that is the US healthcare budget got a clean-up, there's enough money to implement universal health care. A modest tax increase (at the exchange of lower insurance payments) would even mean that the healthcare would probably be pretty good.

Once the government runs something , then the politicians will steal from it, and spend excessively. Politicians will give health care contracts to their political buddies.
Further, government workers will be given vastly higher pay and benefits than a profit-seeking entity would give.

All this results in massive inefficiency which is why the U.S. is bankrupt now, and has to print 1 trillion per year, and borrow between 500 billion to 1.5 trillion per year .

Bill Clinton did a fairly decent job (both before and after the Dot-com bubble). Obama and Bush appears to be mediocre presidents that got the power in tough economic times, and both have had to take the blame when both the congress and the Secreatary of Treasure f*cked up.

A few observations.

First, health care cost per capita in US dollars:



Then, as a percentage of GDP:



The following OECD countries have universal health care (though services are not necessarily directly provided by the government):

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico (recently introduced in 2012), The Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, The Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and The United Kingdom.

The following OECD countries do not have universal health care:

The United States of America.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... by_country
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/hea ... countries/

The problem would be enforcing this....also the alcohol thing might get a little tricky as alcoholism is defined as a mental illness and people with it drink too much and habitually, making it a condition one would be entitled to medical care for....for many with such a condition in order to change their ways and get into shape they would need medical treatment. Not sure how it would be determined if one is a 'drunkard' by choice or if they are suffering from alcoholism. Also then there is the problem of prescription opiates, sometimes well meaning people end up addicted to those...so should one be denied treatment if their 'addiction' stems from a prescribed medication the doctor prescribed them?

I will leave the rest alone as I am sure there will be plenty of comments/opinions about it.

I propose that addicts get one free rehab with the clear admonition the next time they fall down society will NOT pick them up.

Anyone can make a mistake so that person should have a chance to learn from it. Anyone who repeats mistakes clearly is not interested in learning. He can perish.

ruveyn

He even says he's strawmanning you when he does it!