Private companies would buy up all the stock and mark each shot to $100million and launch aggressive ad campaigns for it telling you to ask your doctor about it, after paying $500 for a simple office visit.
What are the arguments against public healthcare in the US?
- Thread starter Dali
- Start date
- Status
Private companies would buy up all the stock and mark each shot to $100million and launch aggressive ad campaigns for it telling you to ask your doctor about it, after paying $500 for a simple office visit.
hamauzu kaito
Member
I appreciate you posting the graphic however, what is this? Have we time traveled back 20-30yrs? Developed Country maybe
The Librarian
Banned
Ron Paul has some decent things to say about this issue. The fact that you guys have forced employers to bundle insurance with employment has just driven the costs dramatically. You don't NEED to have a public health care system to have a good health care system. A privatised but free market system would work too. What you've got currently is just an abomination.
Lazarus had a godly insurance policy.
speculawyer
Member
Noting very rational. There is this blind-faith view that the free-market is great for absolutely everything. Never mind that we have decades of evidence from Japan, Canada, Sweden, France, Korea, etc. that other approaches provide better outcome for less money.
It is a blind-faith scared-of-change view. If you are very wealthy, then we have a great healthcare system. For everyone else, it sucks.
It is a blind-faith scared-of-change view. If you are very wealthy, then we have a great healthcare system. For everyone else, it sucks.
speculawyer
Member
speculawyer
Member
NoThe requested video is not available. We apologize for the inconvenience
Well check bit torrent then, you may be able find it there. Grabbing some PBS program available online for free is not really pirating.
We also have decades of evidence for why government monopolies on healthcare are also a bad thing. See: UK NHS.
Also some of the countries you listed have mixed systems.
AstroNut325
Member
Yet... the people of UK can't imagine life without it!
gutter_trash
Banned
most of the cost of hc in the US goes to administrative insurance claims and red tape.
Public Health Care would cut the fat out of this big administrative waste
Public Health Care would cut the fat out of this big administrative waste
No, a free market system would not bring prices down. It's not a traditional market. Getting your healthcare isn't like walking into a McDonald's and looking at a menu to decide what you want. If you can't understand that, then you're as delusional as Ron Paul is.
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, it sucks so much that they put a tribute in the London Olympic opening ceremonies to NHS. It sucks so much that no UK politicians who propose abolishing it get any traction.
I'm sure Rush, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck says it sucks . . . but for some reason, the people that actually live under it like it. Go Figure.
So you are an accident waiting to happen. God forbid something ridiculous happens to you. Who is going to pay?
Edit: damn I read your other posts... Its worse than I thought.
As Cyan says, there would still be rationing, except done by the insurance companies and most likely by wealth and class. I agree that this is not the ideal scenario -- but what is the correct way to ration such a drug? Or do we just not give it to anybody until we can make it cheaper to use? (This is not an impossible scenario.)
Prove to everyone here that health care is totally insensitive to market forces.
Appeal to population. Doesn't actually shed any light on how effective the health care program is.
Half and half
Member
I like the idea of a public system that covers basic health care and a private system for the extras. So, I say the government does not cover your $50 million shot. But private insurers may offer to cover it if they want.
Because I only care about myself. Actually, my uncle is using public health, Medicaid/Medi-Cal. He's been diagnosed with hyperparathyroidism since early May? Needs surgery, Medi-Cal keep giving him the run around, took I think 6 weeks for him to see a specialist after he was diagnosed with it in the ER.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I've yet to see a 'personal freedom' argument that doesn't sound like it's coming from someone with no personal traumatic life experience who really can't internalize the problem.
Security from worrying about accident, illness, and personal injury is a basic necessity for life in a modern society. Not having to worry about "will I die because I don't have enough money?" is in part what allows a person to go forth putting more of their energies into achieving other things in life of their choosing.
Basic health care isn't a luxury ticket; it shouldn't be optional. It should be one of the reasons why we're in a society together in the first place, like having roads and a utility infrastructure.
The health care "freedom" argument sounds ridiculous when put this way:
"A man should be free to build his own roads! Why should the government pave his way to success when he wakes up in the morning to get in his car and drive to work? Maybe he'd rather pave that road HIS way!"
Meanwhile, in realityland, the average person would just cry and feel their shoulders sag further if actually saddled with having to get up in the morning, drag themselves out, and fill in potholes just to be able to drive to work and do everything they already have to do.
Health care is not telling you what to do with your life. Health care is freedom from being dragged down by life so that you can get on with doing productive things.
Just about every single person I've ever talked to in a country with a sane health care system has expressed disbelief and fear once they fully comprehended what the US is like. The scare stories that get spread about X case that went wrong in a country with national health care represent the same outlier cases that happen in the US - with the difference being in other places, the outliers are way the fuck out there compared to what happens to the average person. In the US the outliers are often just slightly more horrible than what already happens to people every day.
Security from worrying about accident, illness, and personal injury is a basic necessity for life in a modern society. Not having to worry about "will I die because I don't have enough money?" is in part what allows a person to go forth putting more of their energies into achieving other things in life of their choosing.
Basic health care isn't a luxury ticket; it shouldn't be optional. It should be one of the reasons why we're in a society together in the first place, like having roads and a utility infrastructure.
The health care "freedom" argument sounds ridiculous when put this way:
"A man should be free to build his own roads! Why should the government pave his way to success when he wakes up in the morning to get in his car and drive to work? Maybe he'd rather pave that road HIS way!"
Meanwhile, in realityland, the average person would just cry and feel their shoulders sag further if actually saddled with having to get up in the morning, drag themselves out, and fill in potholes just to be able to drive to work and do everything they already have to do.
Health care is not telling you what to do with your life. Health care is freedom from being dragged down by life so that you can get on with doing productive things.
Just about every single person I've ever talked to in a country with a sane health care system has expressed disbelief and fear once they fully comprehended what the US is like. The scare stories that get spread about X case that went wrong in a country with national health care represent the same outlier cases that happen in the US - with the difference being in other places, the outliers are way the fuck out there compared to what happens to the average person. In the US the outliers are often just slightly more horrible than what already happens to people every day.
speculawyer
Member
I'm sorry you hate democracy.
And I'm sorry that the actual statistics prove that they pay less and have just as good or better outcomes.
Try again.
Hey let me play that drive-by stupid argument game.
You've been run over by a bus and are lying unconscious in the middle of the road . . . how good of a decision will you make selecting an ambulance service. How do you select which hospital to go to? Duh.
Straw man argument. I never actually made any postulations as to the democratic legitimacy of the program, only its effectiveness.
Also, the US isn't the only other country in the world, the UK is significantly lagging behind other countries with mixed health care systems.
False dilemma. Health care is so much more then simply emergency treatment.
Because, again, it's not like hopping into a McDonald's or deciding what computer you want to buy. Let's examine why:
1) You lack the knowledge to do a proper quality assessment on the end product. This also means you lack the proper knowledge to do a proper pricing assessment on the end product. Doctors are the experts, not you. Downward pressure comes when consumers know that what they are getting isn't worth the price they're paying.
2) You lack the option to opt out of the system altogether. Even though yes you can indeed opt out of having health insurance you yourself can't decide not to have healthcare. Everyone needs it at some point in their lives. It's a necessary system for everyone. Even with the mandatory process of eating food there's far more flexibility to opt out of the system. If I go to a McDonald's and see that the prices are too high then I can just go to Burger King across the street, or a grocery store on the way home. In the case of completely unneeded products you really can opt out. That's why prices fall in other areas. It's because people decide they'd rather opt out, and companies lower their price when they decide they'd rather have some money rather than none. When you're ill, you normally can't afford to shop around, nor should you have to, and you definitely can't opt out.
3) You are purchasing a product now for an unknown use in the future. With healthcare you do not know how or if you will even use it. Am I looking for insurance that covers heart problems well or insurance that covers cancer well? How the fuck should I know, because I have neither of those things now, nor can I ever know what I will need in the future. People in general are short sighted, and that leads to generally skewed price/quality assessments and purchases or to opting out of the insurance side of the system altogether (which ends up raising everyone else's prices).
4) There are far too many variables to assess. There are just too many pricing structures in place and how they interact is unwieldy and wildly hard to nail down. Even just looking at doctor and insurance separately you have a system where you really don't know which doctor costs what under which insurance. Because of this, straight up pricing can be hard to coerce out of someone. I don't believe you can just call up a doctor and just ask how much X thing will cost, unless they know your insurance. And if they know your insurance, well... you've already purchased and can't do much about it.
5) Aside from all that there's still a moral component as a society. We have decided, rightfully, that patients can't be turned away in an emergency. That skews the private market already. Throw in the moral imperative that most think we absolutely should have a bare minimum amount of healthcare for all of our citizens and you're skewing it even more.
How the hell is that a false dilemma? Plenty of people get into emergency situations. Or are you for some sort of public free assistance in only these cases and not in other health care related cases? How the hell am I to interpret your stance now when you say something that happens to millions of people every day is a false dilemma?
My argument was that health care is so much more then simply emergency treatment. It is certianly an important aspect of, but to frame the argument totally in terms of one aspect of health care, all the while ignoring quality of life treatments such as physiotherapy and treatments for non-life threatening conditions, preventitive measures such as vaccinations and public health policies such as regulation of health impacting goods and services, is a false dilemma.
Edit: That's before you tackle the merits of the argument. The choice of treatment during an emergency is predicated on your choice of insurance plan.
Karsticles
Member
Hi.
I'm not worried, though.
A lot of things sound ridiculous when you make a fallacious analogy.
Nationalized health care does not need to be telling me "what to do with my life". That's largely not the point. It is expanding government power, though, which is always a dangerous thing. Especially when we continually elect presidents who have no problem eroding civil liberties.
That first sentence is some powerful confirmation bias.
Always? So, do you think it was a dangerous thing when we expanded government's power to police or to put out fires? I'm not trying to say these systems are perfect, but surely they're better than a private system, and most sane people would admit as much.
Oh... well maybe you don't fall into my previous sentence...
I don't take the view that it was a bad thing but the principle should rest fundamentally on that government power should be limited as much as possible to prevent any potential oppression. I'm not dense enough to try to argue that a public health care system is a tool of oppression but as I said, I don't think that creating a universal public health system is the best and only answer. There are other alternatives, but they're simply not being explored.
So you honestly want the hospital to try to determine what treatment you're supposed to get while you're dying? In fact this system would require proof of insurance before you can even get an ambulance. Is this really a system you want even as a privileged insured person? What if your ID gets lost in a crash? Gotta let you bleed to death cause you have no proof of insurance.
How can you say they're not being explored? We had a free market system for a while. Old people were living out their days in squalor and people weren't getting treatment. In other words, it didn't work. So we fixed things up with programs like medicare. People were still being denied by insurance companies for things like pre-existing conditions and healthcare costs continue to rise at a pace far too high for people to keep up with. We looked at the options on the table many times and we did so throughout the years. The system we now adopted is the free market solution to this, and yet people want to repeal that. I've not heard a real plausible alternative that fixes the problems the PPACA was trying to fix. If you've got one then feel free to let us know, but I kind of doubt it. There are still problems with the PPACA, and people feel public healthcare would be best, and they feel that way because there's a lot of overwhelming evidence that it is and it works. Where are these alternatives that we can look to for an example?
The Librarian
Banned
I don't understand the theoretical "potential oppression" as an argument against healthcare. Like, what's the reasoning behind it? Government: "Do what we say or we'll take away your health care." Under what situation would that happen?
Looks like I'm going to have to do a bit more research. When did you have the free market system? (So I can look it up). I'm not totally opposed to a public health care system. We have an incredibly robust public health care system here in Australia but that's mixed in with private health care options for those who prefer it.
It wouldn't. It could destroy/skew the market and stifle innovation and competitiveness but not basic rights in that manner.
Karsticles
Member
Oh yeah, it was extremely dangerous to do those things. Heck, look at how many threads GAF gets about police abusing their power. It's a real problem in the United States, and it's because we assigned some faction within our populace this role. I live in Chicago, and until the 80s handguns were banned here. It's extremely dangerous to say "you have to wait for the state to arrive for protection". Thankfully most states embrace castle doctrine, otherwise we'd have stories like the UK, where people can't even throw bums out of their own home.
Firefighters are much less controversial. Primarily because they aren't a lethal force, I imagine. The worst thing firefighters do is ignore fires.
I never said anything about privatization of police forces. My inclination right now is to say I would rather not have a professional police force. At least, if I'm being sympathetic to democratic values.
This is exactly why GAF is called liberal. You can call me insane, stupid, or whatever, because I'm not on board with you, and the moderators don't give two shits. Most of the posters who insulted me didn't even take the time to converse with me about it. It's ridiculous. If I were to call someone insane for thinking ridiculous things that I won't even mention in passing for fear of a ban, it would be...well, an immediate ban.
I've already been insulted in this thread, words put into my mouth, and my position misrepresented. Don't drag yourself to their level by responding in kind. Just focus on the arguments.
Out of curiosity, if you got a serious illness or health emergency, and you didn't have insurance, what would you expect to happen? Would you try to get treatment regardless, and simply take the deserved debt?
elrechazado
Banned
Many people aren't making any, besides stupid catch phrases and silly one liners.
And most would say it's dangerous to say "You're not going to be protected by the state. Good luck hiring your own police force." Again, I said these things were not perfect and do need some reform, but they're hands down better than not having the service offered by the government.
And healthcare isn't a lethal force. There you go.
Oh come on, you're fighting for a system which you currently cannot participate in because you can't afford it and view it as a luxury item. You're in here fighting against a system which you currently utilize when you buy your medication from Canada. Essentially because of this you are on board with me, you're just incredibly stubborn about that fact or just hypocritical.
The thing is you're probably not worried because we've already put in laws that don't allow the hospitals to just let you die without insurance. So you're making bad decisions, then possibly sticking everyone else with the bill afterwards all while arguing against what's in you and pretty much everyone else's best interest by extending the same thought pattern that already lets you not be as worried.
The Librarian
Banned
There's no market to skew. Competition in healthcare does not work. Healthcare isn't something you shop around for. I don't understand the "stifling innovation" critique either. Even under government-run plans, private health insurers would still be able to carve out a niche (as in Canada and many countries in Europe). And medicines are being made all the time in Europe.
The free market was leaving about 50 million Americans without health insurance, causing people to go bankrupt (even with insurance), and denying people based on pre-existing conditions.
Here's a good blog post: Permission to Live: How I Lost My Fear of Universal Health Care. Personal account of a conservative Republican in the US who moved to Canada. As you can see, it's the worst thing in the world.
Karsticles
Member
Likely so. Isn't my only other option death? I assume by "serious" you mean "will die from", or something similarly catastrophic.
I don't need to have my own police force. I just need my own gun. Also, posing the situation as "private vs. government force" is a false dichotomy. There are other options.
Yeah, which is why it's controversial for other reasons...I don't believe I said I'm in favor of state firefighters, I just said it's not as controversial as a police force. Non-controversial =/= I'm in favor of it.
I'm not fighting for anything. I'm explaining my perspective. You fight when you want to defeat an opponent. I have no desire to convince anyone here to embrace my perspective. The context of this thread is "why do people who think this way think that way?" That's the context under which I posted. To my memory, I've never posted in one of the healthcare threads, and I don't post in the GAF politics thread despite having worked in politics for a while.
I don't think it's hypocritical to exploit the weakness of others. I don't think it's hypocritical to say, for example, that I want no one else to own a gun, but I want to own a gun. That's not what hypocrisy is. Hypocrisy exists explicitly when you make a "should" claim of what ought to be done, and then do not follow through with it yourself. I have not made any such claim here.
It's also not hypocritical to say you do not want your healthcare provided by the state, and then engage in free market purchases. It would be hypocritical if I said "socialized healthcare is a terrible thing, no one should ever enroll", and then I went and became covered by Canada's health care system. It's not hypocritical to say "I wish it weren't X", but to still participate in X because it's the best option available to you. None of this is hypocrisy. For example, it's not hypocritical to say "I wish we could have world peace", and then participate in war. It's also not hypocritical to say "this world would be better off without welfare" while participating in welfare. Those are not contradictory sentiments. Saying "no one should participate in welfare" and then participating in welfare, is.
I'm just not worried. It seems unlikely that something terrible will happen to me. Even when I got health insurance at $2000 a year, I wanted to take the $2000 instead of the health insurance, but I opted in favor of the health insurance at my wife's behest. I just don't think it's likely that something fatal is going to happen to me. Though, I've become more worried since moving to south Chicago...
AstroNut325
Member
You make it sound like anything and everything government does is bad.
Why do you have such a view towards public institutions? Was there a traumatic event in your life that made you resent any and all government programs?
And how would socialized healthcare infringe on your freedoms? There will still be private healthcare options if you are not satisfied.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Not at all. Security is the foundation of freedom. Without security freedom is curtailed by necessities.
The Librarian
Banned
You're arguing with a man who decries socialized medicine and at the same time benefits from it. Don't try.
What is your logic for this defense?
Randolph Freelander
Member
Oh good grief. Nobody thinks anything will ever happen to them. They say it is statistically impossible. Guess what? Those statistical impossibilities happen to a lot of real people everyday.
Karsticles
Member
No, I make it sound like sacrificing individual liberty to the state is dangerous, and it is. These are the same arguments most people here embrace when it comes to the state not looking at what you do on the internet, etc.
I'm actually currently employed by the state, and was employed by the state at my last place of employment as well. I also love my current job more than anything else I've done in my life.
It's very difficult to answer this question without knowing how the plan is implemented, but the general principle is more about the doors it opens than the plan itself. Now the state has a large database of your medical history on hand, doctors are now fundamentally employees of the state, etc. When the USSR was around, the populace got free therapy, but all the therapists were also effectively spies for the state. You'll say "but that was there, this is here", or something like that, I imagine. Indeed, but what will the difference between there and here be in the future? The state watching you is a very real thing to fear, and has become actualized in many places throughout the globe.
Freedom is the ability for an individual to do, and nothing but. As the state regulates doing, so freedom is curtailed. No less of a thinker than Benjamin Franklin said just as much:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
A quote related to this discussion:
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I don't see it as being likely. Certainly, there are many opportunities for bad things to happen to me. But, you might say, what do you think I should be worried about happening to me?
Randolph Freelander
Member
So when your home is burglarized when are you not there or if you sleep through it, do you go out with your gun and achieve vigilante justice? Track down the perpetrator, and then what? What can you do? What institution would be there to support whatever punishment you think is appropriate? I'm sorry, your position is farcical. Perhaps too farcical to actually be anything other than a joke.
The Librarian
Banned
You are not sacrificing any individual liberty if the government offers all its citizens a basic set of health benefits.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll