Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Being an American, I'm surrounded by people who are anti-Obamacare because "socialism" is tantamount to the N-word in this country. In my liberal college mind, I think taxes to pay for community services such as police officers and the like is the entire point of representative government, and considering what Americans pay for health insurance (if they're lucky enough to have it) I don't see how raised taxes are worse than high deductibles and companies looking for any reason NOT to cover you.

Most conservatives I say this to just want to hit me and call me an idiot, and even those I do engage in debate say little more than "choice" and "companies that don't want to pay for healthcare will just lay off their already destitute employees." But it's never really backed up with any statistics or reasoned argument.

So, I would like to hear a thought-out, rational response advocating privatized medicine as it is currently practiced in America, and why trying to socialize it like most of the Western world would be bad for the country and its citizens.

Obviously such topics could lead to a flame war, so I would prefer that we propose academic answers rather than just call each other idiots.

It might drive doctors - particularly Family Practitioners, Internal Medicine, and your point-of-contact Physicians out of the field. Medicare is already pretty shit in terms of reimbursement; to the point that many Practitioners don't accept patients with it.

There's no guarantee that a single-payer system would actually provided better benefits for citizens, and it almost definitely wouldn't provided better pay for doctors.

Obamacare is not socialized medicine. It is a mandatory version of our previous privatized medicine system. It combines the worst of both worlds while adding few if any of the benefits of socialized health care that other countries enjoy.

Coming from someone who lives in Canada... it doesn't always work the way it should. It can taeke a year from getting cancer positive results to getting further tests or treatments. It takes me months to get in to see my doctor - even for something important. We still pay for dental work, eye care, drugs (jncluding cancer drugs), birth control, so forth.

My mother waited about 5 years for a knee replacement after it was suggested - then the doctor that did it - did it wrong. After the surgery, he would not give her anything stronger than Tylenol 3's... which my mother is allergic to. She was cut upen nearly ankle to thigh, her bones were cut out of her and metal ones put in, and the doctor wouldn't give her drugs. He also refused to acknowledge that he botched the surgery, and it took a year before she was even allowed to see another doctor to fix the surgery... by then permanent damage was done and my mother will be cripled for life. They replaced that knee with the right one (yeah, he put the wrong knee in, on top of doing it wrong), and a couple years later had to replace her other nee due to the strain put on that leg from bearing her weight completley. ... And in Canada, you can't sue doctors for this. That doctor still practices.

My mother will now walk with a cane and/or walker for the rest of her life and wll be on heavy-duty drugs for the rest of her life. She is in constant pain as the muscles in her leg were butchered and they do not regrow. She can never crouch, or kneel, or sit on the floor ever again. She can barely bend her knees, and will never in her life BEND HER KNEES FULLY. I still can't even comprehend that. All because of our medical system.

Sorry... Unless it works properly (which it does in other countries and is amazing), our system is terrible.

(I've also been almost killed by our system as well, and know many people who waited months for cancer treatments, so long that the cancer became higher stages while waiting. Not to mention other issues.)

Also... research 'Obamacare' before you call it socialized medicine... it's not. At all.

Well, the simplest answer is, it costs money.
Now you say taxes should pay for services, but when the country is running at a loss, the only way to justify that kind of expenditure is to have total revenue increase by at least the amount the system would cost.

'cos you know, giving tax breaks to the filthy rich in order to build casinos actually makes more money (via the misery of the populace, admittedly) than it costs.

Here in Australia, medicare is all right I guess, so long as you don't need anything really expensive.
Then you'd either not get treated or die waiting. But hey, you can get your cold looked at.
Also, good luck if you turn up at a public hospital with chest pains. If you don't actually fall over dying, be prepared to wait some 7 hours to get it checked out.

Logical conservative argument...hmmm...there's a risk of getting things terribly wrong, and the system we have, while not perfect, it's as bad as it could be?

Apply that to more or less eveyr issue, stick with the old ways, we understand them.

I know Obamacare isn't socialized medicine. That plan sucks because like Heronblade said, it's the worst of both worlds. It's definitely the bastard child of partisan politics, but I mention it in the same sentence as socialized medicine because that's what the larger debate in the country is about, and if you talk to a conservative about Obama, "socialist" is sure to follow.

I appreciate the Canadian perspective, although as I love to say: "those who are afraid of long wait times and flippant doctors apparently haven't used the American system either." In my teen years I tore my shoulder, and had to wait three months for an MRI, then about another 3 for the surgery, which didn't work, and had to wait another 6 months for a second surgery. The insurance I was on was better than what most of my peers have, but unless my family was willing to shell out over six figures to pay for the procedures without insurance, I had to wait in the cattle-line that is the medical industry.

I think every American hates Obamacare on its actual merits, but I argue that it doesn't do enough, whereas conservatives argue that it does too much. It's easy to slam Obamacare; I want to hear the pro's and con's of socialized medicine.

I can't help but think there's a more appropriate place to ask this question. I don't know if you'll actually get better answers there though.

I don't see how raised taxes are worse than high deductibles and companies looking for any reason NOT to cover you.

Because that could never happen with government-run (or government-mandated) healthcare. That's not really a strong argument for or against it by itself.

I think most people can agree that there should be some form of affordable healthcare available. Theoretically, the conservative outlook is they just don't want the government to be in charge of it. Privatized healthcare theoretically gives doctors more incentive to be the best damn doctor they can be. Things don't always work out like they should though, because things are never that simple, but the super simplified versions of both sides make sense, just some people like one more than the other.

Too many people. Not enough resources. Millennials are royally screwed, they have about 30-40% less than boomers/parents had at this point in their lives.

Boomers:
Lower costs of living
Higher wages adjusted for inflation
Jobs that required little to no education
Real estate that skyrocketed in value
Stock/401ks that skyrocketed in value
Real, actual pensions.

Millennials:
Living at home into 20s/30s
Leaving home with student loan and credit card debt
Very competitive and low paying job market
No assets

Now, how many boomers do you know that absolutely count on that social security check? I work for a bank and trust me, it's a lot. If boomers had everything, had assets to squander, and here they are calling the bank 3 times a day looking for that check on the 1st and 3rd of every month- how much do you think millennials are going to need? Could there even be a safety net large enough for them? I don't think so because the system is bankrupting as it is.

Health care costs have to be lowered, but socializing health care is not the answer as we will have to significantly reduce spending about 30-40 years from now when those penniless millennials start trying to retire with nothing. It would also the seem the birth rates right now are very low, lowest since the 20s. Who's going to keep paying into social security for the echo-boom?

I just try not to worry and cover my own ass. The situation in the long run seems pretty hopeless.

burningdragoon:

I don't see how raised taxes are worse than high deductibles and companies looking for any reason NOT to cover you.

Because that could never happen with government-run (or government-mandated) healthcare. That's not really a strong argument for or against it by itself.

Fair enough, there's lots of things that suck about government, but the benefit of government over privatized is that I get to vote for my government. Everybody gets an equal amount of votes, so if things are all screwed up, I can vote for the politician offering a solution (theoretically of course. I understand that politicians are generally controlled by private corporate interests, but the alternative is to allow healthcare to be completely controlled by private corporate interests.)

With unbridled capitalism you "vote" with how you spend your money, but life's not fair and wealth is unequally distributed, so we don't all get the same amount of votes. Privatized companies have to answer to the board of directions, a seat that I will never hold. Public programs must ultimately answer to the voter i.e. me, which I personally prefer.

I'll never understand why a nation couldn't have both socialized medicine and privatized medicine.

After all, we have public schools and private schools.

This makes me a bad libertarian but I believe in socialized medicine.

I love the fact we have the NHS. Waiting lists are long, and conditions aren't as good as they could be, but there is always the option of private healthcare for those that can afford to pay for it.

Everyone should be entitled to healthcare, without having to worry if they can afford it.

considering how poorly most of our government is run (except for utilities, law enforcement is a mixed bag) I rather not give the government more responsibility when it shows it is incapable of handling the responsibilities it already has. Now maybe one day down the road I might support socialized medicine, but it is not today. Not with the politicians we have.

That said HMOs need a swift kick in the nuts. I think the system we have can be fixed, and I rather try that option out first.

As a British person, I will always defend the NHS, and advocate it until the day I die. Of course it has its problems, as others have mentioned, but when a person is seriously ill, the last thing on their mind should be the cost of their medical care. Those who are anti-NHS can always choose to go private. Even on minimum wage, I don't mind paying a little extra tax each month so that, when I do need medical care, it won't cost me several grand. To be honest, I'm also baffled that people could be against it.

The logical argument is that the free market will increase competition, which reduces costs and improves services. However, the evidence doesn't back this up, and if you want a free market you can just privatise everything and fund it via the taxpayer (as the UK is doing).

I hope whatever America chooses to do they do something about denial of insurance due to a pre existing condition.

Cost, mainly.

The wait cons here are relevant in the private health sector of America. My most recent experience with our system was a while back, I accompanied my sister to the local ER. We waited from 11 PM to 5 AM, not including the time for her treatment.

Though, I'd still argue that there is a need for a dual public and private sector. As no one should ever be in debt for the rest of their life because of a procedure they had to have.

IndomitableSam:
Coming from someone who lives in Canada... it doesn't always work the way it should. It can taeke a year from getting cancer positive results to getting further tests or treatments. It takes me months to get in to see my doctor - even for something important. We still pay for dental work, eye care, drugs (jncluding cancer drugs), birth control, so forth.

My mother waited about 5 years for a knee replacement after it was suggested - then the doctor that did it - did it wrong. After the surgery, he would not give her anything stronger than Tylenol 3's... which my mother is allergic to. She was cut upen nearly ankle to thigh, her bones were cut out of her and metal ones put in, and the doctor wouldn't give her drugs. He also refused to acknowledge that he botched the surgery, and it took a year before she was even allowed to see another doctor to fix the surgery... by then permanent damage was done and my mother will be cripled for life. They replaced that knee with the right one (yeah, he put the wrong knee in, on top of doing it wrong), and a couple years later had to replace her other nee due to the strain put on that leg from bearing her weight completley. ... And in Canada, you can't sue doctors for this. That doctor still practices.

My mother will now walk with a cane and/or walker for the rest of her life and wll be on heavy-duty drugs for the rest of her life. She is in constant pain as the muscles in her leg were butchered and they do not regrow. She can never crouch, or kneel, or sit on the floor ever again. She can barely bend her knees, and will never in her life BEND HER KNEES FULLY. I still can't even comprehend that. All because of our medical system.

Sorry... Unless it works properly (which it does in other countries and is amazing), our system is terrible.

(I've also been almost killed by our system as well, and know many people who waited months for cancer treatments, so long that the cancer became higher stages while waiting. Not to mention other issues.)

Also... research 'Obamacare' before you call it socialized medicine... it's not. At all.

Really I can get into my doctor almost right away and there is all kinds of walk in clinics. Also anyone with any sort of major issues have gotten in very fast from what I have observed for instance my girlfriends mother had breast cancer and it was taken care of fast and effectively no problems. She is completely fine now. I think a lot of your issues have to do with the doctors you are seeing or the area you are in possibly? Either way I have heard people say great things and I have heard people say awful things it all seems to come down to the doctor you get.

xDarc:
Too many people. Not enough resources. Millennials are royally screwed, they have about 30-40% less than boomers/parents had at this point in their lives.

Boomers:
Lower costs of living
Higher wages adjusted for inflation
Jobs that required little to no education
Real estate that skyrocketed in value
Stock/401ks that skyrocketed in value
Real, actual pensions.

Millennials:
Living at home into 20s/30s
Leaving home with student loan and credit card debt
Very competitive and low paying job market
No assets

Now, how many boomers do you know that absolutely count on that social security check? I work for a bank and trust me, it's a lot. If boomers had everything, had assets to squander, and here they are calling the bank 3 times a day looking for that check on the 1st and 3rd of every month- how much do you think millennials are going to need? Could there even be a safety net large enough for them? I don't think so because the system is bankrupting as it is.

Health care costs have to be lowered, but socializing health care is not the answer as we will have to significantly reduce spending about 30-40 years from now when those penniless millennials start trying to retire with nothing. It would also the seem the birth rates right now are very low, lowest since the 20s. Who's going to keep paying into social security for the echo-boom?

I just try not to worry and cover my own ass. The situation in the long run seems pretty hopeless.

Yeah, but who fucked them (Millennials), and how did they get fucked? Taking away what safety net they can get just fucks them more. Criminalizing unionization and driving down their wages fucks them, and decreases demand which makes even more of them unemployed, despite their degrees, which drives up demand for those degrees, leaving more of them with no choice but to get a college education to flip burgers just to compete, leaving them with debt.

Everybody's solution is just 'get a better job, you lazy hippy!', which would be fucking great if said thing existed. They'll throw applications for places not hiring at people who protest the fact they can't get more than 15 hours of work a week. They're basically protesting "I want to work more!" and people are like "Well, you should work more and you won't have to worry about it!" which is a completely bullshit answer.

You have instances of resources and infrastructure sitting untapped and decaying, and hands that want to work those resources and they can't because the middle men aren't budging on getting anything done so they can squeeze all the blood they can out of the system.

You want these 'penniless millennials' to have an improvement in their lot, stop demanding they 'cover their own ass' on health care insurance, which is an institution that makes absolutely no sense to privatize, considering it's only end product is ripping people off when privatized. Seriously, health care insurance as a private industry only makes money for those that run it if people that need it don't get it and people that don't need it pay into it. Health care is a money sink, not an opportunity. People need to treat it as a public good because doing so makes it more affordable for everybody involved. Health care insurance, as an institution can make money for society, yes. It can in the same way that roads to: they make the basic movement of goods and labor more efficient. But as a private en devour it only works as a pyramid scheme and only is profitable in direct inverse proportion to how much good it does. This is counter to almost every other private industry.

If you want these 'penniless millennials' to not be such a drain on the system, fight for them to get fair wages that drive up demand, which makes sure more of them are hired.

That's how the Boomers made their fortunes, off the back of those that fought for labor and their wages. This shit didn't happen in a vacuum. They didn't make all this money by letting their own elite class leech the life out of them. They had tax rates as high as 90%. They didn't fucking fear that capitalism would vanish if their supervisor didn't have enough money live on a magical fortress on the sun. Their bosses didn't live in fucking Disney castles complaining that they won't be able to pay for health care for their employees, while decrying a single payer public plan as socialism claiming that it's unnecessary workers will get their health care from their earned benefits from employers.

You can't just rely on fucking charity and shit for this because nobody wants to hold the bag. Something that can benefit all of us if we all chip in shouldn't be left up to some random kind person to blink on. Because every asshole is going to drive on the same fucking roads we all use, but he won't pay shit into it because he doesn't have to. Either that or nobody will rebuild jack shit even though everybody wants it rebuild and there's a surplus of dudes to do the work, because nobody wants to be the one holding the bag.

The Boomers passed around the collection plate to their bosses, and put all together, whether they liked it or not, put this money together to build this nation and shit, then when they got rich off of it, they saw the plate come back around and are like "Hold up, let's not be hasty and make this collection plate mandatory! I mean, can't we just let the poor take care of it!". Of course, then when it comes time to collect for shit they like, like medicare and social security, they're like "Let's make the plate mandatory for the poor!".

aba1:

IndomitableSam:
Coming from someone who lives in Canada... it doesn't always work the way it should. It can taeke a year from getting cancer positive results to getting further tests or treatments. It takes me months to get in to see my doctor - even for something important. We still pay for dental work, eye care, drugs (jncluding cancer drugs), birth control, so forth.

My mother waited about 5 years for a knee replacement after it was suggested - then the doctor that did it - did it wrong. After the surgery, he would not give her anything stronger than Tylenol 3's... which my mother is allergic to. She was cut upen nearly ankle to thigh, her bones were cut out of her and metal ones put in, and the doctor wouldn't give her drugs. He also refused to acknowledge that he botched the surgery, and it took a year before she was even allowed to see another doctor to fix the surgery... by then permanent damage was done and my mother will be cripled for life. They replaced that knee with the right one (yeah, he put the wrong knee in, on top of doing it wrong), and a couple years later had to replace her other nee due to the strain put on that leg from bearing her weight completley. ... And in Canada, you can't sue doctors for this. That doctor still practices.

My mother will now walk with a cane and/or walker for the rest of her life and wll be on heavy-duty drugs for the rest of her life. She is in constant pain as the muscles in her leg were butchered and they do not regrow. She can never crouch, or kneel, or sit on the floor ever again. She can barely bend her knees, and will never in her life BEND HER KNEES FULLY. I still can't even comprehend that. All because of our medical system.

Sorry... Unless it works properly (which it does in other countries and is amazing), our system is terrible.

(I've also been almost killed by our system as well, and know many people who waited months for cancer treatments, so long that the cancer became higher stages while waiting. Not to mention other issues.)

Also... research 'Obamacare' before you call it socialized medicine... it's not. At all.

Really I can get into my doctor almost right away and there is all kinds of walk in clinics. Also anyone with any sort of major issues have gotten in very fast from what I have observed for instance my girlfriends mother had breast cancer and it was taken care of fast and effectively no problems. She is completely fine now. I think a lot of your issues have to do with the doctors you are seeing or the area you are in possibly? Either way I have heard people say great things and I have heard people say awful things it all seems to come down to the doctor you get.

Here's the thing too. You might have to wait in line for elective care (unless you got money because even in Canada you can still pay for your own insurance and skip that fucking line, so don't give us bullshit), at least you're in that fucking line.

If you were in America, you wouldn't have to wait a month for something, you'd not get it at all. Unless you happened to have a lot of money on your own or a well paying job, but again, nothing stops you in Canada from buying your own insurance too.

Your doctor fucked up something, welcome to reality. Doctors here fuck up shit all the time too. I can't name 3 people here that afford a doctor that hasn't had one of them fuck up something.

The loss of the innovative medical advancement that is primarily funded through the private sector in America. That we are controlling the pay of some of the most talented professionals in the world, ignoring supply and demand.
Now I know such things do not happen in all systems of socialized healthcare. In fact, most systems of socialized healthcare are really just socialized insurance, something I tend to approve of as private insurance actually adds more unnecessary costs and is honestly worse than socialized insurance. Wait times are apparently the only major differentiating factor, which doesn't bother me too much as long as emergency care remains available. Essentially, it all boils down to wait times, where the difference is vague at best.

carlsberg export:
I hope whatever America chooses to do they do something about denial of insurance due to a pre existing condition.

...Why would you ever expect that to change? Insurance companies hinge on people buying insurance but not needing it in order to stay afloat. Giving it to people who they know they're going to have to pay to take care of kind of defeats the purpose of the business.

SciMal:
It might drive doctors - particularly Family Practitioners, Internal Medicine, and your point-of-contact Physicians out of the field. Medicare is already pretty shit in terms of reimbursement; to the point that many Practitioners don't accept patients with it.

There's no guarantee that a single-payer system would actually provided better benefits for citizens, and it almost definitely wouldn't provided better pay for doctors.

You would have a point about the doctors if there was another field or another country that would hire them for more money. In Canada we have that problem as doctors can make more in the US (of course some return because they can't handle not helping people who don't have insurance).

Now since the US is the only western country without a single payer healthcare plan I don't know where doctors in the US would go to make more money, and I don't know what other profession their skillset would allow them to make more money in.

I don't like the idea of, for lack of better words, socialized healthcare because it goes against a capitalist market. I understand that there are some things that need to be socialized (technically, the military, fire department, police and mail serivces are all socialist ideas when you think about it) but I think that Health Care should be something that is done in the market. However, I do believe in giving aid to those cannot pay for insurance and would die without it, but that isn't very many people especially once we get out of this shitty economy (if we ever do :P).

For the record, I'm more libertarian than conservative but they have a LOT of similarities.

Kopikatsu:

carlsberg export:
I hope whatever America chooses to do they do something about denial of insurance due to a pre existing condition.

...Why would you ever expect that to change? Insurance companies hinge on people buying insurance but not needing it in order to stay afloat. Giving it to people who they know they're going to have to pay to take care of kind of defeats the purpose of the business.

so...your ok with that?
somebody that once had a heart attack but has been ok for years (and now goes out of their way to look after themselves) cant get insurance because of that?

i know people that cant get insured because of some really minor conditions, was shocked actually that they were a reason for denial.

do i expect it to change?
i dunno my friend thats up to you guys, wouldnt you prefer it to be more fair?

captcha: cheese burger.
goes with my heart attack example lol

.

carlsberg export:

Kopikatsu:

carlsberg export:
I hope whatever America chooses to do they do something about denial of insurance due to a pre existing condition.

...Why would you ever expect that to change? Insurance companies hinge on people buying insurance but not needing it in order to stay afloat. Giving it to people who they know they're going to have to pay to take care of kind of defeats the purpose of the business.

so...your ok with that?
somebody that once had a heart attack but has been ok for years (and now goes out of their way to look after themselves) cant get insurance because of that?

i know people that cant get insured because of some really minor conditions, was shocked actually that they were a reason for denial.

do i expect it to change?
i dunno my friend thats up to you guys, wouldnt you prefer it to be more fair?

captcha: cheese burger.
goes with my heart attack example lol

.

It doesn't matter to me. I don't have insurance because I don't need it. If I somehow managed to do something terrible to myself despite not being able to be outside for longer than 20~ minutes at a time (medical condition), then I can just pay for whatever has to be done myself.

Again, the insurance companies are out to make money. They don't provide insurance to be altruistic...they do it for profit. If they don't want to provide converge to any particular group of people on a risk/reward basis, that's their decision to make. Even Obamacare don't change that. Employers will just cut hours and hire new workers to cover the gaps (Unemployment is pretty high right now, making it easy to find replacements).

Blade_125:

You would have a point about the doctors if there was another field or another country that would hire them for more money. In Canada we have that problem as doctors can make more in the US (of course some return because they can't handle not helping people who don't have insurance).

That's not the whole problem. The low returns on Medicare is only one aspect. Another part of the problem is that Primary Care physicians (the doctors you see first in the U.S.) aren't attracting new students. It's the worst paid, the least respected, you still end up with similar debt, and it still requires 8-12 years of education.

Combined with low reimbursement rates (which makes Private Practice infinitely more attractive) from insurance companies and Medicare, and the oncoming storm that is the Insurance Mandate where everybody will be required to purchase Health Insurance resulting in a lot of new patients looking for Doctors... it all spells "Fuck that shit" to most Med School students.

Keep in mind most Med School students (or prospective students) already have a Science degree. They can teach, go into research, pursue a PhD, or any number of things. Plus, if all else fails, it's not difficult to start a practice in another country once they have an M.D. or D.O. The degrees are recognized fairly well (which isn't the same for undergraduate degrees), and a lot of doctors practice in two countries as-is.

It's just a really shitty job for people who are smart and dedicated enough to actually want to be a Doctor, and people are leaving the Primary Care positions faster than new students can fill them. The ACA won't help that, it will only stress it more.

How the market will adjust - increased admissions, better pay, better protection, etc. - will determine exactly how shitty of a job it remains.

SciMal:

Blade_125:

You would have a point about the doctors if there was another field or another country that would hire them for more money. In Canada we have that problem as doctors can make more in the US (of course some return because they can't handle not helping people who don't have insurance).

That's not the whole problem. The low returns on Medicare is only one aspect. Another part of the problem is that Primary Care physicians (the doctors you see first in the U.S.) aren't attracting new students. It's the worst paid, the least respected, you still end up with similar debt, and it still requires 8-12 years of education.

Combined with low reimbursement rates (which makes Private Practice infinitely more attractive) from insurance companies and Medicare, and the oncoming storm that is the Insurance Mandate where everybody will be required to purchase Health Insurance resulting in a lot of new patients looking for Doctors... it all spells "Fuck that shit" to most Med School students.

Keep in mind most Med School students (or prospective students) already have a Science degree. They can teach, go into research, pursue a PhD, or any number of things. Plus, if all else fails, it's not difficult to start a practice in another country once they have an M.D. or D.O. The degrees are recognized fairly well (which isn't the same for undergraduate degrees), and a lot of doctors practice in two countries as-is.

It's just a really shitty job for people who are smart and dedicated enough to actually want to be a Doctor, and people are leaving the Primary Care positions faster than new students can fill them. The ACA won't help that, it will only stress it more.

How the market will adjust - increased admissions, better pay, better protection, etc. - will determine exactly how shitty of a job it remains.

Same issue with general practitioners in Canada (your family doctor or someone you see at a clinic). At that point governments have two choices as I see it. Pay more if the demand is high enough, or spend money on education. I skipped getting a 4 year degree as I didn't want $50k of debt (I shutter to think what someone in the US is stuck with. I instead worked and took night classes and I have a pretty good paying job now. But I digress.

I agree that the market will dictate how things will go. If there are not enough doctors then wait times will go up, and that's an easy thing to campaign on to fix. Maybe one day you will get single payer healthcare and you can pay doctors more since the insurance companies won't be takling such a huge cut.

Kopikatsu:

carlsberg export:

Kopikatsu:

...Why would you ever expect that to change? Insurance companies hinge on people buying insurance but not needing it in order to stay afloat. Giving it to people who they know they're going to have to pay to take care of kind of defeats the purpose of the business.

so...your ok with that?
somebody that once had a heart attack but has been ok for years (and now goes out of their way to look after themselves) cant get insurance because of that?

i know people that cant get insured because of some really minor conditions, was shocked actually that they were a reason for denial.

do i expect it to change?
i dunno my friend thats up to you guys, wouldnt you prefer it to be more fair?

captcha: cheese burger.
goes with my heart attack example lol

.

It doesn't matter to me. I don't have insurance because I don't need it. If I somehow managed to do something terrible to myself despite not being able to be outside for longer than 20~ minutes at a time (medical condition), then I can just pay for whatever has to be done myself.

Again, the insurance companies are out to make money. They don't provide insurance to be altruistic...they do it for profit. If they don't want to provide converge to any particular group of people on a risk/reward basis, that's their decision to make. Even Obamacare don't change that. Employers will just cut hours and hire new workers to cover the gaps (Unemployment is pretty high right now, making it easy to find replacements).

you can't go out? I'm sorry to hear that.
well it dosent affect me either, I just have friends in America I care about and I wouldn't want them bankrupted because of a minor health issue when a real emergency pops up. as was the case recently, fortunatly he had insurance.

1. The money has to come from somewhere. You either hurt the economy by increasing taxes, cut a LOT of other programs to balance the budget, or continue racking in debt. While debt for a nation does not work like the debt you or I get, our national credit rating goes down. That hurts the economy because a lot of private interest rates are dependent on the credit rating of your nation as a whole.

2. The US has had very mixed results, often leaning towards incompetence, when making these kinds of systems in the past. The DMV is basically Hell on Earth, regulations are confusing and require just metric tons of paper work, you know have to choose between radiation or being groped to get on a plane, we had no idea as much as 25% of our military budget (PRE-911) went, our filing system is so bad we have lost both the original moon photos and JFKs brain, and our tax code is both possibly the longest piece of writing in human history, and the least readable.

Mr.Cynic88:
Being an American, I'm surrounded by people who are anti-Obamacare because "socialism" is tantamount to the N-word in this country. In my liberal college mind, I think taxes to pay for community services such as police officers and the like is the entire point of representative government, and considering what Americans pay for health insurance (if they're lucky enough to have it) I don't see how raised taxes are worse than high deductibles and companies looking for any reason NOT to cover you.

Most conservatives I say this to just want to hit me and call me an idiot, and even those I do engage in debate say little more than "choice" and "companies that don't want to pay for healthcare will just lay off their already destitute employees." But it's never really backed up with any statistics or reasoned argument.

So, I would like to hear a thought-out, rational response advocating privatized medicine as it is currently practiced in America, and why trying to socialize it like most of the Western world would be bad for the country and its citizens.

Obviously such topics could lead to a flame war, so I would prefer that we propose academic answers rather than just call each other idiots.

I'm not Conservative, just playing the devils advocate.

The Unites States has 300+ million people. That is ~40% of the entire population of Europe.

The reason it "works" in Europe is because that population is distributed among 70 or however many sovereign countries. This makes the population responsibility for each nation smaller and more manageable.

The amount of money it would cost to fully insure 300,000,000 people under one system would be astronomical--in the trillions of dollars when all is said and done. That's simply not possible to maintain. Making each state responsible for providing healthcare would be a slightly different story, but that's not the argument here.

Having worked in the medical billing field, I understand the payer system and I can unequivocally tell you that a universal single payer system would not work. Not without a complete dismantling and rebuilding of the current system. Even then, if Medicare or Medicaid especially is any indication, the system would be far worse than anything the horror stories out of Canada or Europe.

A European style healthcare system simply won't work in the US. The politics and culture is just too different. We would need to design a completely new thing from the ground up.

BECAUSE ITS SOCIALISM!

Joking aside now. It has to be paid for by the government, which is currently broke. So in addition to losing money, the service provided will probably be poor (or we'll have ridiculously long waitlines like they do in some of the other public welfare countries).

President's Obama initial proposition sounded good. A government welfare which people could fall back on if they didn't want to/ couldn't afford to shop and buy insurance from private companies. The poor and homeless would get basic healthcare from the government, and the wealthier may have to pay a bit more, but they'd still have good quality private insurance.

Unfortunately, what we wound up with was a 1,000 page version of the bill that was presented to and signed by Congress in the span of a few days. I don't really think anyone has a complete understanding of exactly what was signed in. It may not be necessarily bad, but I think at least a week or two should have been allowed in order to sort through the document.

The biggest problem that I have with the universal healthcare Vs private healthcare debate are the legions of people acting as if you can only have one or the other.

I despise the leftist political parties in my nation because they want to make the welfare state too big. Note however that not wanting the welfare state to be TOO big is not the same as wanting there to be NO welfare state. Yet lots of people on the left will scream "YOU WANT TO KILL WELFARE OMFG!!!!!!" the moment you express some kind of disagreement with their views.

I feel that healthcare should be a mix of public and private services. Not just one or the other.

Jacco:
I'm not Conservative, just playing the devils advocate.

The Unites States has 300+ million people. That is ~40% of the entire population of Europe.

The reason it "works" in Europe is because that population is distributed among 70 or however many sovereign countries. This makes the population responsibility for each nation smaller and more manageable.

The amount of money it would cost to fully insure 300,000,000 people under one system would be astronomical--in the trillions of dollars when all is said and done. That's simply not possible to maintain. Making each state responsible for providing healthcare would be a slightly different story, but that's not the argument here.

There's no reason to believe the federal government wouldn't be able to do it. The federal government is already in the business of moving trillions of dollars around.

The argument of inability to scale is weak because it doesn't actually offer reasons why it wouldn't scale like other government programs do. We have a federal mail system, federal social security benefits, and federal Medicaid and Medicare programs.

It's not even like the US is substantially more rural than other countries with socialized medicine, either.

The problem with universal healthcare is the same as private insurance. You have a system where you go to the doctor, and the doctor sends a bill to a third party who just signs a check. This makes the cost of medical care 50 times higher than it would be if people payed out of pocket. Doctors charge you insanely high prices for their services because they know your insurance fairy will pay for it.

I always facepalm when I hear something like "I had to stay overnight in the hospital and got a $2000 bill. Now my greedy insurance company refuses to pay. Greedy insurance companies are the problem" No buddy, the problem is the hospital that thought one of their dinky rooms should cost more per night then a stay at a 5 star hotel. Insurance companies are not a problem. The problem begins and ends when the health care providers who are writing bills that are so ridiculously large that most people in this country cant afford to pay.

Dags90:

Jacco:
I'm not Conservative, just playing the devils advocate.

The Unites States has 300+ million people. That is ~40% of the entire population of Europe.

The reason it "works" in Europe is because that population is distributed among 70 or however many sovereign countries. This makes the population responsibility for each nation smaller and more manageable.

The amount of money it would cost to fully insure 300,000,000 people under one system would be astronomical--in the trillions of dollars when all is said and done. That's simply not possible to maintain. Making each state responsible for providing healthcare would be a slightly different story, but that's not the argument here.

There's no reason to believe the federal government wouldn't be able to do it. The federal government is already in the business of moving trillions of dollars around.

The argument of inability to scale is weak because it doesn't actually offer reasons why it wouldn't scale like other government programs do. We have a federal mail system, federal social security benefits, and federal Medicaid and Medicare programs.

It's not even like the US is substantially more rural than other countries with socialized medicine, either.

This is true, however the money they are spending doesn't exist. The deficit is funded by China. Spending that much money every year is simply not possible. All of the Federal systems in place equal about a trillion dollars together if I remember correctly. You're talking about adding another trillion on top of that PER YEAR for one service. It's simply not feasible. As I said in the other part of my post, you would have to dismantle and completely rebuild the health industry from scratch to get it to a point where it would be affordable. Costs across the board are simply too high because of how things are set up.

Edit: SocSec is not a good example to use because it is self sustaining. People like to scapegoat it, but as far as I know in its charter, it is built to be self sufficient. I don't remember the actual mechanics of it, but it cannot and does not contribute to federal debt costs.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked