Why support Universal Health Care

Post Reply New Topic

Many people in the other industrialized nations often brag about their universal healthcare benefits when the subject comes up. I live in America. Sure, it's morally in-line with good values, and I do want to see everybody in the US have coverage, but why should Americans support the government, which doesn't have any money, by the way, involved in doing it? While it's a good idea, it would be insane too.

I didn't study it very much, so also point me to some good resources on pros and cons (both American and other point-of-view).

Number of issues,

America spends a sum of money on its defence that is excessively disproportionate to the threat it faces. If it even made a modest cut back in defence spending, it could easilly free up the necessary funds for every American man, woman and child to recieve free, on the spot health treatment like in Canada, the UK, France or any other civilised developed democracy.

Many American workers are trapped in jobs they hate, not just because of salaries but because of health plans that keep them where they are and prohibit their choices.

Having a nationalised health service in the US would take the provisions out of the hands of morally questionable insurance companies, all of whom are placing the interests of their own profits before the interests of individual americans.

There are two major economic reasons to support a Single-payer health care system (where the government pays for all care and finances the costs through taxation).

1. Information Asymmetry: Doctors and patients have vastly different potentials for identifying the proper treatment for illness (or if illness even exists). Standard Economic Theory suggests that this will result in an ineffective market for health care services, as consumers cannot properly discern their own demand and the quality of the product they are consuming.

2. Third-party payer problems: Because some health care costs can be staggeringly expensive up front, many people choose to rely on insurance to cover their health care needs (either through private insurance of a public option as a Single-payer system). This creates a situation where the provider (the doctor/hospital) and the consumer (the patient) is not directly footing the bill for treatment. This gives an economic incentive for over-supplying and over-demanding health care. However, single-payer systems have demonstrated to be more efficient at dealing with third-party payer problems than private insurance markets. In fact, the only developed country with a dominant *truly private* health care system (the United States) is widely considered to be ridiculously inefficient in international comparison.

So, I at least think it is the right thing to do. But it's still a tough subject for me, especially because I consider myself a conservative (American kind) in a conservative family. Should I consider myself a liberal now, seeing that I still live in and in fact born in America?

It seems like a crime for any conservative over here to support UHC.

Labels are just labels. If you know what you believe, then there's no need to worry about what "label" you fall under.

Look outside the box. We have conservatives here in Europe and the British isles who would not dare tamper with the nationalised health services.

I do not understand why Americans see politics as a two tone conservative-liberal affair. It isn't healthy for your democracy or intellectual discourse.

The counter response:

1. You introduce inefficiency by turning over health care to the government. ( For example, compare FedEx to the bankrupt U.S. Post office )

2. You give up some freedom to a government worker. (For example, the Department of Education dictating educational standards for the entire country)

3. Higher Taxation might be needed. (For example, the creeping Medicare tax)

4. As President Obama stated, "Government run health care (Medicare) is a ticking time bomb". So, despite all the government failures, despite all the government programs set to bankrupt, despite the present government entities facing bankruptcy, despite the lies he has been proven to tell, this time you have to believe that they got it right

5. The most damning reason to avoid government run health care is because corrupt, greedy people will get themselves into the money and power that goes with government healthcare and become leeches at best, and dangers at worst. (For example, several TSA workers are arrested every month for crimes committed on the job).

If they'd just legalize marijuana....the tax revenue from that could go to the universal health-care.

Agreed, consider yourself a person who can think for themselves and support things selectively based on your own values, do not let yourself be predefined into box A or box B.

Marijuana should be a legal and untaxed gardening plant imo

More cookie-cutter talking points. Is there a specific place where you're getting these from?

Republicans introduced an insane pension plan that is mandatory for all Postal Service personnel. It's designed to bankrupt the Post Office.



Remember when the jackbooted DoE thugs made that public school in Louisiana take down the portraits of Jesus hanging on the wall and made the science teacher stop teaching kids that evolution is a lie? Me neither.



The revenue stream is restricted as much as possible so Congress can keep their wealthy benefactors fat and wealthy. The working class can't bear the burden of a funding a first world country by itself. Especially when that country is determined to conquer the world through covert operations and eternal wars.



Speaking of not telling the truth, you deliberately modified that quote to fit your agenda.

“Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy,” Obama said. “It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.”

He was talking about the insanely inflated price of any medical care in the United States. Hospitals charging a zillion dollars to lance a boil is not sustainable. Obama was talking about private companies, which is the exact opposite of what you claimed.



Oh yeah, I'm going to totally exploit the system. Every other day I'm going to get a cavity filled. And then I might get TEN flu shots, just because I can. Look at me, I'm a Healthcare Queen!

From my understanding of the objective truth of the world.



Ok, so you agree with me. The government is inefficient.



Yes actually ...

No children left behind act to name one of a hundreds ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act



Why not make up a story about aliens sucking the resources off the planet instead of this one ? At least it would be more entertaining.

The "Medicare tax" is for Medicare.

What does "covert operations and eternal wars" have to do with anything?

The government is ever-increasingly inefficient - until we get the bankruptcy - like Detroit.



1., He was on tv talking all the time about the "ticking time bomb" with reference to Medicare.

2. Second, in your quote he specifically says, "It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget". Private companies health care do not impact the federal budget.

Medicare has 100 trillion dollar liability when you add in the prescription drug liability.

source, http://www.usdebtclock.org/ (taken from Federal Reserve & CBO estimates)

This is what the he was talking about.



1. You miss the point. You can get someone like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, or Dick Cheney who exploits the power and money by giving contracts to his industry buddies.

All you arguments are silly. You make up B.S. to argue back , but why ?

Further, it is distressing to see such poor pursuit of the objective truth, and apparent allegiance to a political ideology.

I dont understand what health care has to do with supporting the government? You do it for yourself and the people around here. The reason why people try to get an health insurance is, that if you are not really wealthy, every kind of more complicated Operation breaks your neck. With health care you can be sure, that even if you got a very rare and complicated disease, you will be taken care of.

The broader number of people and peers in an health insurance included, the cheaper it gets for everyone. If people are spreaded on 60 different companies, then you need to pay 60 times the office and organization behind it, as well that it gets more complicated for hospitals and doctors, and this will needed to be payed as well. As well that private companies normally will have owners or shareholders, that want to see profit on the end of the year. While if its an public organization, then sure they need to care for to be balanced, but they dont need to care for a golden pool or private jet of the business owner. As well that because of everything working with the same system, its less complicated, so produces less organizations costs.

In the end I have a good public insurance, that costs me in comparison ot US private insurances far, far less. So I have heard of numbes like 250-300 Dollars for an health insurance, and then there should still be limits as far as I heard, as well as struggles with the insurances if the treatment of an certain disease is in the insurance included or not .... If you are already ill, then bothering and discussing with the insurance, seems very burdening for me.

I think the stuff that scares me most of the US-system are stories of people, that could be treated, but get sent home to die, because of them not being able to pay the costs. Because of everyone being insuranced, thats simply something that does not happen here. So if you have a car accident and are unconcious and have no documents with you, its of no matter, you will still be taken care of (beyond the normal emergency treatment), because of everyone automatically suspecting that you are insuranced.

I'm an RN. Have worked in clinics and emergency rooms for years. The reason we need universal health care is that right now the system is irreparably broken, unsustainable, and skewed towards those with money, while those without suffer. That may be the eternal condition, but we have the means to change it and we should.

No, it's really good at giving tons of money to private enterprises at the expense of taxpayers. Also, it's really good at spying and killing people.



I won't argue that Bush's baby was a terrible idea, but it took the school in Louisiana being sued by a Buddhist student before anyone even bothered to notice what was going on in there.



Any corporation or wealthy individual with a competent accountant can shuffle their money around so that all of it is untouchable. You probably paid more in taxes this year than, let's say, Verizon. Nevermind that items like capital gains taxes are a sacred cow that no Republican would dare to touch

It was recently revealed that The Pentagon spent several trillion dollars on projects you're not allowed to know about. Then there's the maintenance of our drone program and sparkling new Big Brother Mark VI surveillance systems with petabytes of storage capacity. The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (that we know about) are massive as well. All of these things require revenue.

Detroit went bankrupt because the industry supporting it went away. And as the desperation and poverty increased, so too did the corruption. Just like every other civilization on the face of the planet.



Dude, seriously, this is not difficult.

1. Bob has government assistance which helps to cover his medical expenses.
2. The hospital Bob goes to charges him tremendous amounts of money completely arbitrarily for absolutely any procedure they perform.
3. That burden of that inflated expense is then partially shouldered by the government.

Or replace Bob with someone who goes to the emergency room and then never pays his bill. Either way.



My liver just failed due to an overdose of irony.

I dont know health care works in your country, but around here, for certain procederes or treatment, hospital gets always the same amount of money. So Appendix-removement always costs the same. If whyever, the treatment becomes more complicated (As example an schoolfriend of mine had his appendix in the middle of his belly, below the bellyspot: In the end they cut at the normal spot at the right hip. Then if the appendix isn´t at the normal place, then 90% its simply mirrored on the left body site, so they cut there as well. But there was as well no appendix. So in the end they started again from the right cut, and opened his belly along his digestives until they found it. Because of that the operation needed more time, more amounts of medication, more treatment because of the huge wound....) they have to show the insurance proofes (photographs, X-ray, ...), why they had more effort then usual, and will be refunded. They dont have to do that for every minor extra-effort, so as example for the removal of my wisdom teeth, its about 20 minutes of work, that is included in the fee the doctor gets. Mine was already grown out, had straight roots, ... so it only needed 2 minutes in the end. At other times, the tooth will still be beyond the flesh, so they need to cut it open, care for the wound, maybe might need to split it because of the roots... So the effort they get refunded is for the medium effort, they normally have. So if an hospital billed them with some phantasy-numbers, they would need to bring proof, of why they are so much more expensive then normal.