Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

Before this turns into a complete circle-jerk, let's summarize some of the typical arguments against:
-taxes will have to go up and/or spending decrease elsewhere to support this. i.e. free healthcare isn't.
-the best tool we have to increase innovation and efficiency is the profit motive. take that away, and we will see sharp decreases in both in the health sector.
-since the government can't exactly raise prices, presumably they will want to control costs. once the government starts butting in, we could see a decrease in doctor flexibility.
-as a follow-on, once healthcare procedures become a political football, we could see more politically-motivated government-mandated procedures a la the transvaginal ultrasound.
-and, of course, we'll see all the same sort of lobbyist-driven dirty backroom dealing we see in other industries where the government is heavily involved. maybe Halliburton will move into healthcare?
-costs will rise significantly, as with "free" healthcare, people will hit up doctors and get drugs for even the mildest problems.
-people who are careful of their physical safety, eat healthy, get plenty of exercise, don't drink or smoke, etc, will have to pay for those who aren't/don't and so cost a whole lot more to keep alive.
-on the flip side, taxpayers will feel like they should have a say over your mountain climbing, lack of exercise, smoking, etc. they will become public rather than private issues.
-people mock "death panels," but some form of rationing is probably inevitable. right now it's done by "does your insurance cover this"--how will the government do it?
-some people who were motivated by high salaries to become doctors might now become financial analysts or some similar useless job. we might face a doctor shortage.
-those who still become doctors are gonna have student loan problems, once they don't have the high salaries to cover them.
-government will have all of your health information.
-long waits.
-oh, and the slippery slope/government mission-creep argument.

 

[greyshark]

I think instead of focusing on the symptom of how to pay for the enormous expense that is healthcare, we should instead be focusing on the disease: how to reduce the cost of healthcare in the first place.

 

[Asbel]

Frontline: Sick Around the World

Pretty good outline of the differences between national health care around the world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/ non netflix video link

 

[ComputerMKII]

Frontline: Sick Around the World

Pretty good outline of the differences between national health care around the world.

Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country yet.
Enter your email & we'll let you know when Netflix is available.

 

[Zaptruder]

Reasons for not having healthcare in the US:

"I got mine. Fuck you."

 

[jerry1594]

The government expanding into everyday life like a octopus.

 

[Imbarkus]

As far as I can tell: "Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Whatever does kill you makes me stronger."

Economic Darwinism.

 

[pigeon]

I think instead of focusing on the symptom of how to pay for the enormous expense that is healthcare, we should instead be focusing on the disease: how to reduce the cost of healthcare in the first place.

That's the breakdown for the $750 billion -- representing a third of all health care costs in America -- spent on health care that doesn't improve health, according to the Institute of Medicine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...necessary-health-care-two-charts-explain-why/

The big takeaway, frankly, is that our health care system sucks because it's just not well-run -- the incentives in the current (pay-per-service) system promote inertia, waste, obfuscation and even cartel behavior. Change the incentives, the system will change itself.

 

[Asbel]

Sorry, Netflix is not available in your country yet.
Enter your email & we'll let you know when Netflix is available.

can you access the pbs link in my edit?

Here's the breakdown for people who can't watch video
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

 

[Future]

Healthcare is a business. Leave them alone

Big government sucks. Shouldn't get involved

Universal health care = cost to middle class and higher go up to pay for other people's care. Uninsured patients getting care will decrease the availability of said care to the people paying for it

 

[Karsticles]

1) National debt.
2) Personal freedom.

Edit: Everyone assuming personal greed and lack of care for the welfare of others is ridiculous. I don't have health insurance. Neither does my wife. I'm not strongly inclined toward nationalized healthcare.

 

[ComputerMKII]

can you access the pbs link in my edit?

Here's the breakdown for people who can't watch video
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

No The requested video is not available. We apologize for the inconvenience

 

[elrechazado]

1) National debt.
2) Personal freedom.

Edit: Everyone assuming personal greed and lack of care for the welfare of others is ridiculous. I don't have health insurance. Neither does my wife. I'm not strongly inclined toward nationalized healthcare.

You've been brainwashed by the koch brothers.

 

[Seguin]

1) National debt.
2) Personal freedom.

Edit: Everyone assuming personal greed and lack of care for the welfare of others is ridiculous. I don't have health insurance. Neither does my wife. I'm not strongly inclined toward nationalized healthcare.

well congrats on never getting seriously ill, then.

 

[Kusagari]

Because it's evil socialism that the GOP themselves tried to pass 40 years.

 

[Karsticles]

You've been brainwashed by the koch brothers.

Which movie would have done that?

well congrats on never getting seriously ill, then.

Wouldn't that be nice?

 

[RDreamer]

1) National debt.
2) Personal freedom.

Edit: Everyone assuming personal greed and lack of care for the welfare of others is ridiculous. I don't have health insurance. Neither does my wife. I'm not strongly inclined toward nationalized healthcare.

1) LOL
2) So... greed?

 

[AstroNut325]

Before this turns into a complete circle-jerk, let's summarize some of the typical arguments against:
-taxes will have to go up and/or spending decrease elsewhere to support this. i.e. free healthcare isn't.
-the best tool we have to increase innovation and efficiency is the profit motive. take that away, and we will see sharp decreases in both in the health sector.
-since the government can't exactly raise prices, presumably they will want to control costs. once the government starts butting in, we could see a decrease in doctor flexibility.
-as a follow-on, once healthcare procedures become a political football, we could see more politically-motivated government-mandated procedures a la the transvaginal ultrasound.
-and, of course, we'll see all the same sort of lobbyist-driven dirty backroom dealing we see in other industries where the government is heavily involved. maybe Halliburton will move into healthcare?
-costs will rise significantly, as with "free" healthcare, people will hit up doctors and get drugs for even the mildest problems.
-people who are careful of their physical safety, eat healthy, get plenty of exercise, don't drink or smoke, etc, will have to pay for those who aren't/don't and so cost a whole lot more to keep alive.
-on the flip side, taxpayers will feel like they should have a say over your mountain climbing, lack of exercise, smoking, etc. they will become public rather than private issues.
-people mock "death panels," but some form of rationing is probably inevitable. right now it's done by "does your insurance cover this"--how will the government do it?
-some people who were motivated by high salaries to become doctors might now become financial analysts or some similar useless job. we might face a doctor shortage.
-those who still become doctors are gonna have student loan problems, once they don't have the high salaries to cover them.
-government will have all of your health information.
-long waits.
-oh, and the slippery slope/government mission-creep argument.

Can you back up any of these with substantiated data? How are these things being dealt with by countries already utilizing socialized healthcare? What makes us so unique?

 

[AstroNut325]

1) National debt.
2) Personal freedom.

Edit: Everyone assuming personal greed and lack of care for the welfare of others is ridiculous. I don't have health insurance. Neither does my wife. I'm not strongly inclined toward nationalized healthcare.

It is nothing more than personal greed. You don't want to pay taxes.

Good luck later in life when you'll need medical attention.

 

[Karsticles]

1) LOL
2) So... greed?

2) is more about worrying about the impacts on civil freedom that nationalized healthcare can have. I tend to believe that it is in the interest of freedom for a populace to be less reliant on the state than more. Hence also why I am in favor of gun rights. It's not clear how you think 2) could even be greed, since greed is about wanting a superfluous amount of something - how would that apply here?

It is nothing more than personal greed. You don't want to pay taxes.

Good luck later in life when you'll need medical attention.

Good luck on furthering your reading skills.

 

[xxracerxx]

1) National debt.
2) Personal freedom.

Edit: Everyone assuming personal greed and lack of care for the welfare of others is ridiculous. I don't have health insurance. Neither does my wife. I'm not strongly inclined toward nationalized healthcare.

Personal choice? I mean health insurance is the smartest thing to have if you want to actually live life (as in not being fearful of hurting yourself and going into massive debt).

 

[RDreamer]

2) is more about worrying about the impacts on civil freedom that nationalized healthcare can have. I tend to believe that it is in the interest of freedom for a populace to be less reliant on the state than more. Hence also why I am in favor of gun rights. It's not clear how you think 2) could even be greed, since greed is about wanting a superfluous amount of something - how would that apply here?

You want a superfluous amount of "freedom" even though that "freedom" impedes the health and freedom of others. Thus, greed.

And on the freedom discussion I feel that it's in the interest of every person to be less worrisome and afraid of their healthcare than more. You are more free to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you're not saddled by inescapable medical debt or the looming fear and shadow of "what if I get sick?" It also stomps out entrepreneurship, since you cannot take risks and create your great idea if you're tied to health insurance provided by your employer. Basically, if your healthcare is more taken care of you are absolutely more free, and I cannot understand how anyone would not see that.

 

[Karsticles]

Personal choice? I mean health insurance is the smartest thing to have if you want to actually live life (as in not being fearful of hurting yourself and going into massive debt).

A little bit of personal choice, a little bit of poverty. If I had superfluous money, I would probably get health insurance just because it's convenient. Right now I have to get my medications through an online pharmacy in Canada because it's cheaper than going anywhere in the USA. The fact is that my wife and I have a total of $120K in student loan debt, and healthcare is a pretty big luxury for us right now.

You want a superfluous amount of "freedom" even though that "freedom" impedes the health and freedom of others. Thus, greed.

You need to look up the word superfluous. There's no such thing as a superfluous amount of freedom. Pure nonsense to suggest otherwise. The "personal" in personal freedom wasn't a reference to my person, either. It was a general principle of every person having personal freedom.

And on the freedom discussion I feel that it's in the interest of every person to be less worrisome and afraid of their healthcare than more. You are more free to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you're not saddled by inescapable medical debt or the looming fear and shadow of "what if I get sick?" It also stomps out entrepreneurship, since you cannot take risks and create your great idea if you're tied to health insurance provided by your employer. Basically, if your healthcare is more taken care of you are absolutely more free, and I cannot understand how anyone would not see that.

You are using the word "free" to mean "secure" here. Security and freedom are often opposites, and this is a case where it is so.

 

[Seguin]

Healthcare should never be considered a luxury item o.o

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Good luck on furthering your reading skills.

Just wondering, why don't you have health insurance?

I mean, personal choice and all, but if you can afford it, why go without? If "well, that will never happen to me" actually happens to you, you will be bankrupted (or just die). Seems fairly irresponsible. Particularly if your irresponsibility is going to pass the cost on to me anyway.

A little bit of personal choice, a little bit of poverty. If I had superfluous money, I would probably get health insurance just because it's convenient. Right now I have to get my medications through an online pharmacy in Canada because it's cheaper than going anywhere in the USA. The fact is that my wife and I have a total of $120K in student loan debt, and healthcare is a pretty big luxury for us right now.

OK, it's part affordability. Well, you're exactly the kind of person that would benefit from subsidized health care. And with your Canadian imports, seems like you are a person benefiting already.

 

[RDreamer]

A little bit of personal choice, a little bit of poverty. If I had superfluous money, I would probably get health insurance just because it's convenient. Right now I have to get my medications through an online pharmacy in Canada because it's cheaper than going anywhere in the USA. The fact is that my wife and I have a total of $120K in student loan debt, and healthcare is a pretty big luxury for us right now.

...

You're getting your medications from Canada and can't afford health care here and yet you're against nationalized healthcare? You realize you're the caricature of a person that the rest of the world laughs and wonders about, right?

 

[Husker86]

As a UK example:
Somebody earning £24000 (before tax), £895.27 of the tax they pay would go to health.

According to HMRC's tax calculator app.

That's almost $1500/3.7%, not a small amount of money. I also assume the amount is higher if the salary is higher (going by same percentage I'd pay about $1850 based on my salary). That's also just income tax. What about the extra you pay on goods? I haven't looked recently, but from what I can remember prices on things like electronics and such were higher in the UK by quite a bit. Is that just corporations being greedy in that area or is it because they are taxed more by the government which in turn leads them to charging more for their goods? I assume some of that is to cover healthcare.

I pay under $500 a year for insurance. However I work at a hospital and I know my employer subsidizes my cost greatly. I also understand that not everyone has access to insurance at that price.

Again, I realize it's selfish. But I'm young and like to spend my money on things from working on my house to travel and entertainment, not taxes.

All that said, I cannot vote Republican anymore. One of the main reasons is I can't stand how they want to use religious ideals to form national law. Until they as a party move away from that I won't even consider them an option.

 

[xxracerxx]

Just wondering, why don't you have health insurance?

I mean, personal choice and all, but if you can afford it, why go without? If "well, that will never happen to me" actually happens to you, you will be bankrupted (or just die). Seems fairly irresponsible. Particularly if your irresponsibility is going to pass the cost on to me anyway.

The hospital will not just let him die if he doesn't have insurance, I don't know where you get this from. Hell one of the reasons your healthcare bill is so expensive is that you are helping pay for people who cannot pay.

 

[Zoramon089]

SOCIALISM

 

[Seguin]

That's almost $1500/4%, not a small amount of money. I also assume the amount is higher if the salary is higher. That's also just income tax. What about the extra you pay on goods? I haven't looked recently, but from what I can remember prices on things like electronics and such were higher in the UK by quite a bit. Is that just corporations being greedy in that area or is it because they are taxed more by the government which in turn leads them to charging more for their goods? I assume some of that is to cover healthcare.

I pay under $500 a year for insurance. However I work at a hospital and I know my employer subsidizes my cost greatly. I also understand that not everyone has access to insurance at that price.

Again, I realize it's selfish. But I'm young and like to spend my money on things from working on my house to travel and entertainment, not taxes.

All that said, I cannot vote Republican anymore. One of the main reasons is I can't stand how they want to use religious ideals to form national law. Until they as a party move away from that I won't even consider them an option.

If your employer was no longer required to pay for your healthcare, in hypothetical magical fairy land your salary should increase, so it's not like you'd be losing money on increase taxed income.

 

[computers putin']

According to my fiance's mother, if the poor start using hospitals there won't be enough time and resources left to treat the people who actually deserve it - upper-middle-class and wealthy whites.

That is actually her belief, and not exagerrated in the slightest. I assume it's a commonly-held belief among people of her persuasion.

I wish the guys against public healthcare would just be direct and come out and say this, because we all know it's what they're thinking.

Edit: okay, not all of them, but I too believe it's a commonly held sentiment among certain demographics.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

The hospital will not just let him die if he doesn't have insurance, I don't know where you get this from. Hell one of the reasons your healthcare bill is so expensive is that you are helping pay for people who cannot pay.

People without healthcare often avoid doctors and/or the hospital, is the point. See: lack of preventative care. So my argument is two prong. Something major comes up that lands you in the hospital but is treatable: you're bankrupt. Something major progresses over time and is untreated, and is something that might have been caught and treated earlier, and the lack of insurance played an active role in dissuading the earlier visit... death.

 

[Karsticles]

Just wondering, why don't you have health insurance?

I mean, personal choice and all, but if you can afford it, why go without? If "well, that will never happen to me" actually happens to you, you will be bankrupted (or just die). Seems fairly irresponsible. Particularly if your irresponsibility is going to pass the cost on to me anyway.

I explained in another post. Primarily, personal finances. It's a weird sense of responsibility to say that I need to pay for something because otherwise it might indirectly cost you more due to institutional mechanisms I have no influence over.

...

You're getting your medications from Canada and can't afford health care here and yet you're against nationalized healthcare? You realize you're the caricature of a person that the rest of the world laughs and wonders about, right?

"The poor act against their own interest", etc. I'm familiar.

 

[xxracerxx]

People without healthcare often avoid doctors and/or the hospital, is the point.

Gotcha.

 

[i-Lo]

Can anyone list countries that have national health programs?

Also, how many of those countries introduced it to its economic detriment?

 

[RDreamer]

The hospital will not just let him die if he doesn't have insurance, I don't know where you get this from. Hell one of the reasons your healthcare bill is so expensive is that you are helping pay for people who cannot pay.

Yes, a hospital cannot let you immediately die because of lack of insurance, but the lack of continuing care can and does lead to situations where you now have something that perhaps they cannot do much about and then you do die. Or, things like this could happen, where you go over your lifetime limits. Thankfully, because of Obamacare this can't happen anymore.

 

[AstroNut325]

2) is more about worrying about the impacts on civil freedom that nationalized healthcare can have. I tend to believe that it is in the interest of freedom for a populace to be less reliant on the state than more. Hence also why I am in favor of gun rights. It's not clear how you think 2) could even be greed, since greed is about wanting a superfluous amount of something - how would that apply here?


Good luck on furthering your reading skills.

A little bit of personal choice, a little bit of poverty. If I had superfluous money, I would probably get health insurance just because it's convenient. Right now I have to get my medications through an online pharmacy in Canada because it's cheaper than going anywhere in the USA. The fact is that my wife and I have a total of $120K in student loan debt, and healthcare is a pretty big luxury for us right now.


You need to look up the word superfluous. There's no such thing as a superfluous amount of freedom. Pure nonsense to suggest otherwise. The "personal" in personal freedom wasn't a reference to my person, either. It was a general principle of every person having personal freedom.


You are using the word "free" to mean "secure" here. Security and freedom are often opposites, and this is a case where it is so.

Um... relying on a country with socialized healthcare while railing against socialized healthcare in your own country. I'm not the one with reading comprehension issues.

 

[Karsticles]

Um... relying on a country with socialized healthcare while railing against socialized healthcare in your own country. I'm not the one with reading comprehension issues.

That's not an issue of reading comprehension. You might mean to criticize my moral center and call me a hypocrite? Take a breather and think about what you're trying to communicate. It might help your posts.

 

[Deified Data]

I wish the guys against public healthcare would just be direct and come out and say this, because we all know it's what they're thinking.

Edit: okay, not all of them, but I too believe it's a commonly held sentiment among certain demographics.

Say one thing about her, she's honest. Will never admit she's racist, though, for some reason. She's one of those "I don't care if you're black so long as you know your place" racists.

That's not an issue of reading comprehension. You might mean to criticize my moral center and call me a hypocrite? Take a breather and think about what you're trying to communicate. It might help your posts.

Yeah, I think that's what he was going for but had the tact to not be so frank.

 

[Mgoblue201]

-the best tool we have to increase innovation and efficiency is the profit motive. take that away, and we will see sharp decreases in both in the health sector.

Does anyone really use this specific argument? Access to health care has almost nothing to do with medical innovations (which are actually being hindered now, but that's a different subject). Even access to care is probably something that the free market doesn't do well. I say this for several reasons. 1) There is a moral component to the fundamental idea of health care that sets it apart from every other market. That is why patients can't be turned away in an emergency. Depriving citizens of at least basic health care or life-saving measures is something that should not in general be practiced. 2) The consumer lacks the necessary knowledge to chose between competing "products". 3) Even under generous circumstances, the consumer cannot shop around, especially in an emergency. 4) The situation is emotionally charged and often not amenable to rational decision-making.

 

[Schattenjäger]

This poor people don't deserve to get healthcare reason is nonsense ..

What do you think Medicaid, CHP, FHP are ? They provide healthcare for poor people already.

 

[Seguin]

This poor people don't deserve to get healthcare reason is nonsense ..

What do you think Medicaid, CHP, FHP are ? They provide healthcare for poor people already.

You can be poor and not be eligible for Medicaid. The income requirements, generally, are very low.

 

[RDreamer]

Does anyone really use this specific argument? Access to health care has almost nothing to do with medical innovations (which are actually being hindered now, but that's a different subject). Even access to care is probably something that the free market doesn't do well. I say this for several reasons. 1) There is a moral component to the fundamental idea of health care that sets it apart from every other market. That is why patients can't be turned away in an emergency. Depriving citizens of at least basic health care or life-saving measures is something that should not in general be practiced. 2) The consumer lacks the necessary knowledge to chose between competing "products". 3) Even under generous circumstances, the consumer cannot shop around, especially in an emergency. 4) The situation is emotionally charged and often not amenable to rational decision-making.

Yes people have used that specific argument. I've had numerous people parrot it to me, and along with that I do remember politicians saying the same thing. Most recently I remember Rick Santorum basically saying that exact thing in the primaries.

 

[pigeon]

Healthcare should never be considered a luxury item o.o

This is actually a key aspect of the problem with health care -- people perceive it as being either a luxury or an emergency purchase, which is kind of the equivalent of saying "buying food is a luxury" when you're not hungry and then going to a restaurant when you do get hungry because it's too late to cook. We all know what that does to your food budget -- and if we all did it, then there would be all kinds of discussion over the "enormous rise in the average cost of a meal for the typical American."

This is why an insurance mandate is so important (and why there are several countries that have implemented functional healthcare systems that use an insurance mandate instead of government single-payer) -- it, like government taxation, ensures that people pay a little for their health care every month, rather than nothing until they spend way too much.

 

[Husker86]

If your employer was no longer required to pay for your healthcare, in hypothetical magical fairy land your salary should increase, so it's not like you'd be losing money on increase taxed income.

That's a good point. Are employers not responsible for any extra taxes in an NHS-like system?

I wished we live in hypothetical magical fairy land.

 

[Cr0wn0]

You can be poor and not be eligible for Medicaid. The income requirements, generally, are very low.

Not to mention that most of the programs have freezes and so many crazy requirements. If your a childless adult good luck ever getting help.

 

[Baconsammy]

Simple. It would benefit minorities the most. Republicans can't stand minorities. Slap the 'socialism' label on it and call it a day.

 

[Cyan]

Can you back up any of these with substantiated data? How are these things being dealt with by countries already utilizing socialized healthcare? What makes us so unique?

I'm not too excited about backing those up, no.

I will say, though, that the one about rationing being inevitable might hold some water. Healthcare costs have risen faster than inflation for years. Some say this is because of bloat and inefficiency and so on. What if it's just the natural result of ongoing technological progress to keep people alive, and facing decreasing returns on that project?

It seems like as we are able to keep people alive longer, it gets harder and more expensive to extend that out. We keep pushing it, because who wants to just let people die, and so healthcare gets more and more expensive. Older technologies should decrease in price over time, of course, but if the older technology extends someone's life just enough to require new technology to fix something else, it's still going to cost more in the end.

What happens if--to use the least convenient possible example--we discover a drug that cures cancer straight up. No chemo, no pain, no inconvenience even. But the catch is that the components are so rare, it costs $50 million a shot. Do we give everyone the drug or not? Do we wait until the cost goes down? Do we triage, just giving it to the worst cases to begin with? What about the people who die in the meantime?

I made the scenario a bit outlandish, but the point is that this class of problems are not unlikely. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather have government death panels making those decisions over insurance company death panels, but the point is that someone is going to have to make those decisions.

 

[StudioTan]

Can anyone list countries that have national health programs?

Also, how many of those countries introduced it to its economic detriment?

Green = countries with universal health care.

The US is the only first world country without universal health care.

 

[AstroNut325]

What happens if--to use the least convenient possible example--we discover a drug that cures cancer straight up. No chemo, no pain, no inconvenience even. But the catch is that the components are so rare, it costs $50 million a shot. Do we give everyone the drug or not? Do we wait until the cost goes down? Do we triage, just giving it to the worst cases to begin with? What about the people who die in the meantime?

How would that scenario play out in the current system in the US?