Universal healthcare - Yay or nay?

[chimpburgers]

Is universal healthcare something that is even feasible and attainable in the United States? I'd like to hear from you on this topic. I think it's very well possible to have it here as long as the current healthcare system here in the US has a major reform and we get the big pharmaceutical companies out of it. It shouldn't be like Cuban healthcare though, it needs to be more akin to what they use in European countries. Either way, it's becoming a pressing concern as many people go bankrupt as a result of skyrocketing medical bills. I don't think Obamacare as it is adequate enough for that.

 

[KatsuKitty]

When I read about government-managed healthcare facilities like the VA leaking overflowing feces through the ceiling downstairs, it doesn't fill me with much enthusiasm. Singapore has healthcare done right.

 

[Gun Barrel City Texas]

It could work I think but the income taxes would have to go way up for everyone (even poorer people)

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that government should vaccinate people (against their will) and otherwise treat diseases that affect others such as infectious diseases and mental illnesses that result in violence.

I see no reason for the government to pay for treatment of diseases which only harm the affected individual (and people who are invested in their health) such as cancer and the like.

I think that the only thing government should do is provision public goods (goods which benefit everyone and it is difficult to pay for them as a result), no redistribution of wealth should occur (possibly even including progressive taxation) and any attempt to redistribute wealth is a violation of the social contract and suitable rationale for revolution/coup

 

[DZ 305]

Everybody has the right to adequate healthcare. Period. It is essential to upholding human life and dignity. The fact we treat huge parts of the medical industry as a commodity first is a predictable cause of skyrocketing costs in basic procedures and medications. We don't necessarily need a nationalized healthcare system , but we do need to do something, and simply cutting red tape and letting the market handle it isn't a solution to providing priority to the poor.

 

[JU 199]

Universal healthcare is great and I would have sex with it.

Seriously though it's a sound concept with many benefits. Not to say there's no downsides but since the implementation of the NHS in the UK the population doesn't get bogged down with unpayable healthcare debt, many diseases have been reduced though initiatives within the service, (the list goes on)

That's not to say the system isn't in crisis (it is) but it worked very well with the right mindset and funding.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Everybody has the right to adequate healthcare. Period. It is essential to upholding human life and dignity. The fact we treat huge parts of the medical industry as a commodity first is a predictable cause of skyrocketing costs in basic procedures and medications. We don't necessarily need a nationalized healthcare system , but we do need to do something, and simply cutting red tape and letting the market handle it isn't a solution to providing priority to the poor.

You need to actually support these massive assertions that you are making. What makes it so that the rich should fulfill these "rights"? Is there some sort of metaphysical annihilation that will occur if these ideas are ignored? I totally think that only a minority benefits from privatized healthcare but why should they surrender this benefit for the majority when they will get nothing in return? Governments are not some sort of feature of the universe that just exists randomly. They exist because the people and all the people have agreed to follow their laws for mutual benefit and as soon as you make it so that anyone no longer benefits from governments then they have no reason to continue to follow them and if we have progressive taxation and universal healthcare (for illnesses without externalities) then it makes the rich no longer have a motive to follow the government.

 

[DZ 305]

You need to actually support these massive assertions that you are making. What makes it so that the rich should fulfill these "rights"? Is there some sort of metaphysical annihilation that will occur if these ideas are ignored? I totally think that only a minority benefits from privatized healthcare but why should they surrender this benefit for the majority when they will get nothing in return? Governments are not some sort of feature of the universe that just exists randomly. They exist because the people and all the people have agreed to follow their laws for mutual benefit and as soon as you make it so that anyone no longer benefits from governments then they have no reason to continue to follow them and if we have progressive taxation and universal healthcare (for illnesses without externalities) then it makes the rich no longer have a motive to follow the government.

The wealthy benefits from a healthy population, as it translates into healthier and productive workers. You could argue that you shouldn't pay taxes to build roads you won't use in states you never will never visit. The wealth that people are born into or earn with their talents is theirs for the purpose of stewardship. A society that doesn't help the least among them is destined to fail in the long run. "scienti et volenti non fit injuria"

Is there some sort of metaphysical annihilation that will occur if these ideas are ignored?

Apart from the injustice of letting people suffer and die or go into poverty through no fault of their own, it is against the virtue of Justice. Anything that is contrary to a virtue shouldn't be encouraged.

 

[Puppet Pal Clem]

There seem to be a number of universal healthcare systems working in a few first world countries.

If it can work, I don't see anything wrong with trying to create one.

My problem with social systems is that they destroy competition and consequently innovation.
How many of the advances in medicine in the first world are due to competitive and capitalistic systems like America?
Is there a way to balance a system that avoids such stagnation?
And how much does our system prop up others? Is their success a luxury afforded by our cost?
And then gray questions, where do we draw the line, when do we allow people to die?

If anything I'd say start with universal healthcare for children.

 

[DZ 305]

There seem to be a number of universal healthcare systems working in a few first world countries.

If it can work, I don't see anything wrong with trying to create one.

My problem with social systems is that they destroy competition and consequently innovation.
How many of the advances in medicine in the first world are due to competitive and capitalistic systems like America?
Is there a way to balance a system that avoids such stagnation?
And how much does our system prop up others? Is their success a luxury afforded by our cost?
And then gray questions, where do we draw the line, when do we allow people to die?

If anything I'd say start with universal healthcare for children.

Quite a lot of nations with universal health care have continued to innovate. The hip replacement surgery was pioneered in the 60's by John Charnley of the UK. Peter Mansfield came up with Echo-Planar Imaging in the 1970's. The EPI was what lead to the creation of the MRI. And the use of ultrasounds to diagnose people is almost as old as the NHS itself. If we really want to worry about innovation, we can cut the pork spending on stupid shit and fund more research in science and medicine.

 

[Joan Nyan]

I'm against universal health care because I don't believe it's right for the government to take people's money and use it for something which only benefits some people rather than everyone. I'm not against my own money going to help others in the form of charity (which I do plan to give to once I'm independent and financially stable) but just because I'm okay with spending my money to help others doesn't mean everyone should be forced to.

 

[The 25th Cyberman]

I'm against universal health care because I don't believe it's right for the government to take people's money and use it for something which only benefits some people rather than everyone. I'm not against my own money going to help others in the form of charity (which I do plan to give to once I'm independent and financially stable) but just because I'm okay with spending my money to help others doesn't mean everyone should be forced to.

Exactly who doesn't benefit from universal healthcare?

 

[Joan Nyan]

Exactly who doesn't benefit from universal healthcare?

People in good health who pay more into the system through taxes than they get out.

 

[DZ 305]

People in good health who pay more into the system through taxes than they get out.

You could argue we shouldn't have federal funds go to build roads because you won't ever use them, or even visit the state

 

[Joan Nyan]

You could argue we shouldn't have federal funds go to build roads because you won't ever use them, or even visit the state

Yeah, I could. Why aren't roads all state or locally funded? But now we're just getting off topic.

 

[Wallace]

That's not to say the system isn't in crisis (it is) but it worked very well with the right mindset and funding.

There's the problem. We could have all kinds of social services here in the US, but the kneejerk mistrust of the government and taxes means they'll never be funded.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Universal healthcare is used to subsidize alcoholics and drug addicts and fatties by taking money away from healthy people and giving it to them to pay for their self imposed healthcare costs and thus gives them more money to buy drugs and alcohol

 

[Joan Nyan]

Universal healthcare is used to subsidize alcoholics and drug addicts and fatties by taking money away from healthy people and giving it to them to pay for their self imposed healthcare costs and thus gives them more money to buy drugs and alcohol

Don't forget bug-chasers.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Don't forget bug-chasers.

I do think that government should pay for people with gender dysphoria to get psychiatric treatment for their illness so they don't mutilate their bodies and try to get others to do the same because not being a victim of recruitment is something that benefits everyone just like treating people who are prone to violence due to mental illness benefits everyone

The wealthy benefits from a healthy population, as it translates into healthier and productive workers

If they do then they should just directly pay health insurance for their workers and their families as well as potential workers. They should let the drug addicts and exceptional individuals die

Apart from the injustice of letting people suffer and die or go into poverty through no fault of their own, it is against the virtue of Justice. Anything that is contrary to a virtue shouldn't be encouraged.

Justice is not a virtue. Justice is a man made concept and following it is in denial of the virtue of prudence

 

[Marvin]

There's the problem. We could have all kinds of social services here in the US, but the kneejerk mistrust of the government and taxes means they'll never be funded.

I don't think that's entirely fair. I think the extreme diversity of the US makes a good case to moderate federal level social services. A heavily urbanized east coast state is very different from, say, Nevada.

It would probably be good to have lots of social services operate on a state level basis. And then provide tax benefits to help develop poorer states.