Universal healthcare - Yay or nay?

[Watcher]

I think there would have to be a big public push for it.

I don't think in this era of big pharmaceutical companies having such a stranglehold on the current political climate in the US that it would ever happen.

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

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/
Universal healthcare covers more people for less money. The US spends more on healthcare than any other civilized country. You're literally paying more just for punishing undesirables in society. I'm 100% certain if you had a close relative who died of alcohol poisoning because they couldn't afford health insurance your first reaction wouldn't be "they deserved it".

For every anecdotal "fatty" or "alcoholic" you also have a person who doesn't need to spend 14 thousand dollars for a complex hand surgery. Or someone who doesn't need to go into debt for a pre-existing condition they had no control over or were even aware of. I've even seen a video about how expensive it can be to give birth in the US since hospitals won't actually quote you on a price.

They should let the drug addicts and exceptional individuals die

I'm sure your mother is very proud of you

they should just directly pay health insurance for their workers and their families as well as potential workers.

This harms small businesses significantly more than it does larger corporations. It makes them significantly less likely to employ more people if they have to pay significantly more for health insurance.

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.

Universal healthcare benefits everyone.

This same argument could be made toward building bridges. "Why should my money go toward building a bridge in some part of town I'm never going to cross?" You'll notice that building that bridge leads to less congestion and thus you drive faster to work. Or you'll notice less traffic accidents.

You can say the exact same thing about public schools additionally. "Why should I spend tax money on public schools when I take my kids to a private school?" Having public schools leads to more literate people which has directly lead to the society we live in today.

Universal healthcare covers more people for less money. Additionally, less people going into debt over medical expenses and spending less on healthcare overall is better for society. Which indirectly benefits everyone.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

[/QUOTE]

I think there would have to be a big public push for it.

Who cares, we are not a democracy we are a social contract so there needs to be mutual agreement

I don't think in this era of big pharmaceutical companies having such a stranglehold on the current political climate in the US that it would ever happen.

The pharmaceutical companies are corrupt and they are controlling the government to benefit themselves. This is not what I advocate as I am against government regulation of any sort aside from banning lying in a contract and making it so that all contracts should be explicitly agreed upon. I would not move to America because the Canadian system is better even though still undesireable

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries/

Universal healthcare covers more people for less money. The US spends more on healthcare than any other civilized country. You're literally paying more just for punishing undesirables in society. I'm 100% certain if you had a close relative who died of alcohol poisoning because they couldn't afford health insurance your first reaction wouldn't be "they deserved it".

That is good for a utilitarian but I am not a utilitarian. There are several ways to reduce costs that don’t involve universal healthcare. I would pay for my relative to get treatment because I care about my family and only my family

For every anecdotal "fatty" or "alcoholic" you also have a person who doesn't need to spend 14 thousand dollars for a complex hand surgery. Or someone who doesn't need to go into debt for a pre-existing condition they had no control over or were even aware of. I've even seen a video about how expensive it can be to give birth in the US since hospitals won't actually quote you on a price.

.

That is unethical business practice and effectively a form of extortion and should be illegal. Private healthcare would function with someone paying upfront for the treatment and if they are unable to pay they die

As far as the unlucky person I don't care about them because they are likely beyond the point that the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit

I'm sure your mother is very proud of you

She is

This harms small businesses significantly more than it does larger corporations. It makes them significantly less likely to employ more people if they have to pay significantly more for health insurance.

That is only when the government forces businesses to pay for it. I am not advocating it and just think that there are some cases in which it is in the interest of a business to give its employees health insurance.

Universal healthcare benefits everyone.

It does not benefit the rich who are killed by it

This same argument could be made toward building bridges. "Why should my money go toward building a bridge in some part of town I'm never going to cross?" You'll notice that building that bridge leads to less congestion and thus you drive faster to work. Or you'll notice less traffic accidents.


You can say the exact same thing about public schools additionally. "Why should I spend tax money on public schools when I take my kids to a private school?" Having public schools leads to more literate people which has directly lead to the society we live in today.

I specifically said that I advocate a system that pays for illnesses with externalities but not ones without externalities so everything you said is invalid

Universal healthcare covers more people for less money. Additionally, less people going into debt over medical expenses and spending less on healthcare overall is better for society. Which indirectly benefits everyone.

The only reason why the USA has such high healthcare costs is because their system still provides emergency room service automatically and their system promotes ER visits. If ER visits were only available after checking to see that the person has health insurance then it would be irrelevant.


The problem with your arguments is that you are not actually arguing against me but against the American healthcare system which I am not advocating. I think that public healthcare is superior to the American system but I am arguing in favour of a mixed system of multi payer public healthcare and private healthcare from benefit societies (not for profit insurance)

 

[Watcher]

That is good for a utilitarian but I am not a utilitarian. There are several ways to reduce costs that don’t involve universal healthcare. I would pay for my relative to get treatment because I care about my family and only my family

Not everyone has a family

That is unethical business practice and effectively a form of extortion and should be illegal. Private healthcare would function with someone paying upfront for the treatment and if they are unable to pay they die

This means that being poor or working a low wage job is bad for your health literally. And leads to less desirable outcomes. Like I used the example of birth very specifically because if a person can't pay to give birth that can easily lead to the death of a child and themselves. Especially if they need a cesarean. This also has another effect where if a birth is criminally expensive they're more likely to attempt it themselves and harm the child.

Another example. A parent can't pay for cancer treatment and dies, their children become wards of the state. Costing the state much more than the cancer treatment. Meaning you pay more regardless. Unless you're additionally claiming people who are wards of the state also deserve to die.

As far as the unlucky person I don't care about them because they are likely beyond the point that the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit

I don't believe a person who saves their entire life for things like a nest egg or a car should lose all of their savings because of bad luck or something that was completely out of their control. Especially when it's cheaper when the state pays for it.

The only reason why the USA has such high healthcare costs is because their system still provides emergency room service automatically and their system promotes ER visits. If ER visits were only available after checking to see that the person has health insurance then it would be irrelevant.

So while a person is bleeding on the sidewalk you want a system where paramedics have to call ahead to see if it's worth saving someone before doing anything about it?

The problem with your arguments is that you are not actually arguing against me but against the American healthcare system which I am not advocating. I think that public healthcare is superior to the American system but I am arguing in favour of a mixed system of multi payer public healthcare and private healthcare from benefit societies (not for profit insurance)

the benefit to socialized healthcare is it's very modular. In Canada for instance private healthcare systems exist (I even pay private healthcare here) for dental, cosmetic, psychiatric and other less emergency based medicines. You can choose what to privatize and what not to privatize. And there is an argument to be made over having certain systems made private leading to more innovation (cosmetic surgery is a good example, as is Dental). What I am saying is something that is life threatening should never be privatized.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Not everyone has a family

Not everyone has someone who wants them alive

This means that being or working a low wage job is bad for your health literally. And leads to less desirable outcomes. Like I used the example of birth very specifically because if a person can't pay to give birth that can easily lead to the death of a child and themselves. Especially if they need a cesarean.

That is a very good reason why to not work a low wage job

Another example. A parent can't pay for cancer treatment and dies, their children become wards of the state. Costing the state much more than the cancer treatment. Meaning you pay more regardless. Unless you're additionally claiming people who are wards of the state also deserve to die.

That is exactly what I am claiming

I don't believe a person who saves their entire life for things like a nest egg or a car should lose all of their savings because of bad luck or something that was completely out of their control. Especially when it's cheaper when the state pays for it.

That is the reason for insurance. It is risk hedging where several people pool their risks together such that they have less of a chance to be affected by a significant event like that and can better plan their future

So while a person is bleeding on the sidewalk you want a system where paramedics have to call ahead to see if it's worth saving someone before doing anything about it?

This is why people should carry implanted ID chips with them at all times

the benefit to socialized healthcare is it's very modular. In Canada for instance private healthcare systems exist (I even pay private healthcare here) for dental, cosmetic, psychiatric and other less emergency based medicines. You can choose what to privatize and what not to privatize. And there is an argument to be made over having certain systems made private leading to more innovation (cosmetic surgery is a good example, as is Dental). What I am saying is something that is life threatening should never be privatized.

And I say that only ones with externalities should be done because those are the only ones which fulfill the role of government which is only to provision public goods and defend property rights and enforce contracts

 

[Watcher]

This is why people should carry implanted ID chips with them at all times

 

[autisticdragonkin]

That is a very good reason why to not work a low wage job

I do consider it a choice and there are benefits to choosing a low wage job

 

[Watcher]

I do consider it a choice and there are benefits to choosing a low wage job

 

[autisticdragonkin]

View attachment 96255

What are you trying to say with that post

I do consider it a choice and there are benefits to choosing a low wage job

They are often less risky (at least at first) and they have earlier payouts as well as being less demanding

 

[Pikimon]

Low paying jobs are the definition of risky. In terms of safety, practically all low-paying jobs are menial labor jobs that are high in health risks (coal mining, construction, domestic service) and low in benefits. In terms of being "less demanding" sure its less demanding mentally (in some aspects) but its typically more demanding physically and most people in this line of work all suffer from extreme backpain and physical trauma.

There is a very good reason why people move away from agricultural and menial work and push their children to go into higher education: BECAUSE LOW PAYING JOBS SUCK

No one "chooses" to go into a low paying job, they settle into it in order not to starve and to provide for themselves and their family.

 

[CWCissey]

As a Britfag, I like universal healthcare. The NHS isn't perfect, but it's better than being the pharmaceutical companies' bitch. Although I do like the choice of a private healthcare company such as BUPA being available if you so choose.

 

[IwegalBadnik]

Not everyone has someone who wants them alive

If something like this were in place I imagine gold diggers would have considerably more success. Those types often have a vested interest in their partner being dead.

 

[Shokew]

America needs REAL Universal Healthcare for all its citizens. I don't see that happening when the corporations (Big Pharma) are in control of everything. The only way I see America getting actual Universal Healthcare is when people rise up & organize (hopefully, without too much violence...) against these corporations preventing us from having it - that can't (better yet, won't) happen fast enough, sadly, due to how no one trusts government nor likes to pay taxes into something that's actually useful.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Low paying jobs are the definition of risky. In terms of safety, practically all low-paying jobs are menial labor jobs that are high in health risks (coal mining, construction, domestic service) and low in benefits.

I was talking about the risk that you take going into university with the quite large chance that you will be unemployed afterwards and thus have wasted 4+ years of your life. In comparison there isn't such a risk in those jobs and every year of your life reliably gives you a payout. For people who don't want such risks they can take those jobs instead. There is a much greater chance of getting no payout from a university degree than getting your finger chopped off in an industrial accident especially in the short term.

In terms of being "less demanding" sure its less demanding mentally (in some aspects) but its typically more demanding physically and most people in this line of work all suffer from extreme backpain and physical trauma.

What I meant by less demanding is that there are less barriers to entry. If you have a criminal record it doesn't affect your chances of getting the job nearly as much for example. Additionally you get more free time and can use it to do other stuff as opposed to needing to spend 90 hour work weeks performing your job.

There is a very good reason why people move away from agricultural and menial work and push their children to go into higher education: BECAUSE LOW PAYING JOBS SUCK

I think that higher education although potentially valuable is essentially a ponzi scheme right now and many people are entering into the market irrationally. It is like subprime mortgages, assuming your house price wasn't ridiculously inflated when you bought it you could still have gained from getting a mortgage if you could reliably pay it off but if you got a ninja loan then it was a terrible idea to enter the market. I would much rather have low income risks than high income risks because they are easily insured and not very likely to happen as opposed to high income risks (they have a worse effect but their likelihood cancels them out)

No one "chooses" to go into a low paying job, they settle into it in order not to starve and to provide for themselves and their family.

You just gave extremely good reasons to choose low paying jobs. If you have an immediate need for money they are far better

If something like this were in place I imagine gold diggers would have considerably more success. Those types often have a vested interest in their partner being dead.

You realize that people can buy their own health insurance instead of having their family members buy it

 

[Phil Ken Sebben]

I don't see how a healthy populace is anything but a good thing for everybody. Every first world country out there has universal healthcare for it's populations except the United States. And every single country with it doesn't want to change this.

Yes it means more taxes but it also means that people aren't going to lose their homes and nobody needs to fear going to the doctor because they can't afford it.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I don't see how a healthy populace is anything but a good thing for everybody. Every first world country out there has universal healthcare for it's populations except the United States. And every single country with it doesn't want to change this.

Yes it means more taxes but it also means that people aren't going to lose their homes and nobody needs to fear going to the doctor because they can't afford it.

It is not a good thing because it stops people from being able to work to be healthier than other people. If they want other people to be healthy then they should do it by their own will as opposed to being forced to with the threat of violence

 

[Sallet Lad Jim]

It is not a good thing because it stops people from being able to work to be healthier than other people.

Most health care systems that include universal healthcare provide benefits to those willing to pay more. It's not a 'everyone has equal medical aid', it's, 'everyone has access to basic medical aid, and if they pay, they can get stuff that's even better'.

If they want other people to be healthy then they should do it by their own will as opposed to being forced to with the threat of violence

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Most health care systems that include universal healthcare provide benefits to those willing to pay more. It's not a 'everyone has equal medical aid', it's, 'everyone has access to basic medical aid, and if they pay, they can get stuff that's even better'.

That is exactly what I am advocating. I just think that it shouldn't include certain types of ER visits

I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here.

Democracy is violence where the rich are forced to submit to collective will via violence or the threat of violence

 

[YoloSwaggins]

I'm a britfag and the NHS is one of the best things about the UK. like with all welfare programs people game the system but you have to remember for every druggie going into A and E for drugs there is quite a lot more people get the extra care needed. disabled people aren't rejected for the expensive operations/medicines and other stuff they require and it means a lot more are able to hold down jobs because they have the support they need and put back into the system via taxes.

yes there is issues to do with universal health care, as well as the doctor strikes there is a shortage of beds in hospitals and the mental health care units are woefully inadequate for children and young adults. the upside of it all though is the thousands of people that owe the NHS their lives because of the quick response of paramedics and the trauma teams and all of it's free for every citizen of the United Kingdom no matter the problem. that in my book is one of the most worthy welfare systems in the world, it doesn't discriminate or judge it just keeps doing its job.

 

[Vitriol]

I think its worth pointing out there are various systems of universal healthcare and a system that makes minimal private health insurance a legal requirement and subsidises the poorest like in the Netherlands is very different to state run health systems paid for with revenue like the UK.

 

[Pikimon]

I was talking about the risk that you take going into university with the quite large chance that you will be unemployed afterwards and thus have wasted 4+ years of your life. In comparison there isn't such a risk in those jobs and every year of your life reliably gives you a payout. For people who don't want such risks they can take those jobs instead. There is a much greater chance of getting no payout from a university degree than getting your finger chopped off in an industrial accident especially in the short term.

You say that, but getting a university degree (doesn't matter which) still on average guarantees a job and a higher salary than a person without a higher education degree.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77

From the article:

For young adults ages 25-34 who worked full time, year round, higher educational attainment was associated with higher median earnings; this pattern was consistent for 2000, 2003, and 2005 through 2013. For example, in 2013 median earnings for young adults with a bachelor's degree were $48,500, compared with $23,900 for those without a high school credential, $30,000 for those with a high school credential, and $37,500 for those with an associate's degree.

In other words, young adults with a bachelor's degree earned more than twice as much as those without a high school credential (103 percent more), 62 percent more than young adult high school completers, and 29 percent more than associate's degree holders.

Additionally, in 2013 median earnings for young adults with a master's or higher degree were $59,600, some 23 percent more than median earnings for young adults with a bachelor's degree. This pattern of higher earnings associated with higher levels of educational attainment also held for both males and females and across racial/ ethnic groups (White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian).

In comparison people without a University degree on average have severely limited employment opportunities and often have a pay cap on how high they can be paid because the sad fact about low-paying jobs is that every person in a menial position by definition is replaceable. These are jobs that have no benefits, no healthcare, and no chance to move up in life. In comparison the kind of jobs that exist with a University degree on average are more likely to have benefits and at least the opportunity to move up in salary and career.

Issues exist with the University system sure, but these issues are primarily because of needless monetization that exists to exploit students.