Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

I did, and I responded.

I said read what you wrote, not what I wrote.

Arakasi:

generals3:

Looters? really? So not having the luxury of being insured in a private healthcare system makes you a looter? Well, whatever makes you feel better about your cruel ideology of letting the poor die on the streets.

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.

What about it?

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

Did I say continued existence was was a luxury? No. I said that medical care was.

Take a good long look and see if you can't spot what I'm talking about. I'll wait.

Not a clue.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

generals3:

Looters? really? So not having the luxury of being insured in a private healthcare system makes you a looter? Well, whatever makes you feel better about your cruel ideology of letting the poor die on the streets.

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.

Arakasi:
If you were to die if you weren't given a gold bar would anyone give you that gold bar?

What a simplistic, fallacious, reductionist justification.

It sure is.

Silvanus:

"A gold bar" (seriously?) is not the equivalent of a portion of tax subsidizing a healthcare system that provides life-saving treatment for all who are in need of it. You know, a tax that millions of people willingly pay.

Not the point, you were saying that you live in a society where lives trump money, but no, it doesn't. It only trumps what is considered to be a 'reasonable amount' of money.

Silvanus:

And even if it was (which is utterly ludicrous), then I would still imagine that somebody would. I would certainly give away a gold bar, if I had one, if it saved a life.

Really? Because people have the opportunity all the time to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars to give someone the medical treatment they need. You'll notice that it actually happening is a very very rare occurance.

Silvanus:

But I don't have to. A portion of earnings as tax is enough.

That's your choice, why should it be everyone elses?

Arakasi:

Not the point, you were saying that you live in a society where lives trump money, but no, it doesn't. It only trumps what is considered to be a 'reasonable amount' of money.

Uhrm... yeah, I can see that (although no, that wasn't what I was saying, I just said I live in a "civilized" country, and consider it so in part because of its healthcare system).

I'd still far rather live in a country where a pretty reasonable amount of money is considered worth paying to subsidize a life-saving system, than in your fuck-em-if-they're-poor utopia.

Arakasi:

Really? Because people have the opportunity all the time to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars to give someone the medical treatment they need. You'll notice that it actually happening is a very very rare occurance.

Giving large sums of money to charity is a "very rare occurrence", eh? Well, certainly rarer than it should be, yes. That's why we require poverty initiatives & foreign aid from the world's wealthier governments. Government-run systems or initiatives are required when charity doesn't cover it, but you seem to genuinely believe in neither. Is it a genuine belief that the rich should live, and the poor, if they cannot pay, should die or go bankrupt?

Arakasi:

That's your choice, why should it be everyone elses?

Because we can't rely on the goodwill of the self-absorbed and the greedy.

May I ask, do you support the idea of tax at all, and if so, what for?

Surely, to you, it should be up to the people individually whether they want to pay for police and firemen. Let the rich defend themselves with privately-owned hydrants and security, and let the others do as they will. And infrastructure, too. If those that can afford it can be carried around in their sedan chairs, without the need for roads, why should they subsidize them?

Ultrajoe:
My girlfriend recently caught her finger in a blender. It was a stupid mistake, exacerbated by a poorly designed machine, but it left her with a shattered bone, a host of deep cuts and the ability to spray blood in all directions impressively. She was lucky she didn't lose any flesh, but went into shock and nearly passed out.

We called a friend who drove us to the hospital, where we filled out a brief form and were taken to the Accidents and Emergencies room. A nurse stemmed the bleeding and gave her some painkillers. Barring filling in the form we were taken from the front door to a bed within a minute. Her condition fixed for now, we waited for a little under an hour for a doctor to come by and schedule an X-ray and order a proper cleaning and dressing. With that done, we picked up our stuff and walked out, without paying a cent. They wrote us a prescription for some heavy-duty painkillers and antibiotics, which we then bought for under $40, not a small expense but affordable. We live in Australia, for the record.

I read a lot about the problems of socialized medicine, but none of the doomsday scenarios or archy-written proclamations concerning freedom line up with the reality experienced by myself, or in fact any of my friends or family. Our doctors are well paid (richly, in fact), our treatment is of a high standard and we're all healthy, fit individuals.

I just thought it worth mentioning. As somebody who lives in a country with a system like Medicare (our version), it's been nothing but helpful.

Ultrajoe, unfortunately the United States is willingly leaping to 3rd world financial status. Australia is in a much better financial situation than we are. Your nation is actively paying down it's debts. When we were a richer country in purchasing power, these prices were similar. In fact before our giant healthcare overhaul your girlfriend would have had a similar experience if she were visiting the US and the same thing happened here. In fact this is still the case.

However they weren't treating you for free. They are being compensated. It is simply being moved from a different area.

Emergency care for people likely your age is as cheap as it can possibly be (guessing between 18-30). Whatever cost it was will be made up in future earnings and thus future tax revenue.

Enjoy it while it lasts, Australia might survive better in the times ahead.

aelreth:

However they weren't treating you for free. They are being compensated. It is simply being moved from a different area.

Emergency care for people likely your age is as cheap as it can possibly be (guessing between 18-30). Whatever cost it was will be made up in future earnings and thus future tax revenue.

I gather as much, I certainly know the tax bite on my paychecks. I acknowledge the financial concerns that a healthcare system brings, and that I have a limited range of expertise (or any) to comment on that with, I only wanted to speak to my experiences with such a system and the way it sharply differs from a lot of hypotheticals that get passed around in discussions like this.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

Not the point, you were saying that you live in a society where lives trump money, but no, it doesn't. It only trumps what is considered to be a 'reasonable amount' of money.

Uhrm... yeah, I can see that (although no, that wasn't what I was saying, I just said I live in a "civilized" country, and consider it so in part because of its healthcare system).

Civilised is subjective.

Silvanus:

I'd still far rather live in a country where a pretty reasonable amount of money is considered worth paying to subsidize a life-saving system, than in your fuck-em-if-they're-poor utopia.

Never did I say fuck them if they're poor, nor do I think my system results in that. That's simply your opinion.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

Really? Because people have the opportunity all the time to give away hundreds of thousands of dollars to give someone the medical treatment they need. You'll notice that it actually happening is a very very rare occurance.

Giving large sums of money to charity is a "very rare occurrence", eh? Well, certainly rarer than it should be, yes.

I didn't say to charity, I said directly to individuals who need it for medical treatment.

Silvanus:

That's why we require poverty initiatives & foreign aid from the world's wealthier governments.

Poverty initiatives which steal money from those who earned it.
And foreign aid? I'd argue that doesn't actually help anything. Unless it's directly after a disaster, or to provide education.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

That's your choice, why should it be everyone elses?

Because we can't rely on the goodwill of the self-absorbed and the greedy.

You sure can't. Maybe you should just rely on yourself.

Silvanus:

May I ask, do you support the idea of tax at all, and if so, what for?

For the military, for police and for the justice system. And maybe roads, I'm not sure on that one.

Silvanus:

Surely, to you, it should be up to the people individually whether they want to pay for police and firemen.

That could be optional, but the default would be it being on.

Silvanus:

Let the rich defend themselves with privately-owned hydrants and security, and let the others do as they will.

In my type of society, they could if they so wished.

Silvanus:

And infrastructure, too. If those that can afford it can be carried around in their sedan chairs, without the need for roads, why should they subsidize them?

I agree, it should be optional, but you then can't use that infastructure if you aren't paying for it.

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.

lol what are you talking about bro? real estate that skyrocketed in value? That is what happened quite recently with the whole GFC thing. People speculated that since land was in finite supply, land value would always go up. Not the case, and the prices reached ridiculous heights and this was simply not sustainable. But it was great to be a seller in this market.

When was this enlightened period anyway?

Arakasi:

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.
As for 'my ideology', this is not mine, I am merely representing it in this discussion.
And I not bow to your appeal to guilt, it is a poor argumentative tactic.

Isn't that what you do? Make those who disagree appear as supporting "looting" ? Isn't that appealing to guilt? I find it rather ironic you blame me for doing something you started doing.[/quote]
No, if anything that is an ad-hominem. But in my view, it is true, how is it not looting to take that which you did not earn? [/quote]

But in my view it is true that the side you represent has a cruel opinion. And that's the whole point now isn't it: the fact healthcare shouldn't be "earned" but a right.

generals3:

You call people who can't afford insurance "looters", i call people who think it's right to let the poor die on the streets cruel. Seems rather fair.

I never said those who can't afford insurance are "looters". It's those who take money not earned by themselves who are looters. Apples and oranges.

How is theft even relevant to this topic? As far as i know it we never talked about thieves or robbers but healthcare.

generals3:

And not everyone can work for it. So you are by default dooming people to die, because despite everyone's best intentions it will probably never occur that everyone has healthcare insurance.

If someone has a child that will never be in a condition to work, and they choose not to terminate it they should be the ones who bear the responsibility of that child. Not society.

I wasn't necessarily talking about physically or mentally disabled people. However due to the higher unemployment rate than open jobs it is, at this point, impossible for everyone to get a job.

generals3:

Arakasi:

The luxury is afforded to those who work for it, not those who do nothing and expect it.
As for 'my ideology', this is not mine, I am merely representing it in this discussion.
And I not bow to your appeal to guilt, it is a poor argumentative tactic.

Isn't that what you do? Make those who disagree appear as supporting "looting" ? Isn't that appealing to guilt? I find it rather ironic you blame me for doing something you started doing.

No, if anything that is an ad-hominem. But in my view, it is true, how is it not looting to take that which you did not earn? [/quote]

But in my view it is true that the side you represent has a cruel opinion. And that's the whole point now isn't it: the fact healthcare shouldn't be "earned" but a right. [/quote]
Why should someone else's hard work be your right?

generals3:

generals3:

You call people who can't afford insurance "looters", i call people who think it's right to let the poor die on the streets cruel. Seems rather fair.

I never said those who can't afford insurance are "looters". It's those who take money not earned by themselves who are looters. Apples and oranges.

How is theft even relevant to this topic? As far as i know it we never talked about thieves or robbers but healthcare.

And those who steal it using the law.

generals3:

generals3:

And not everyone can work for it. So you are by default dooming people to die, because despite everyone's best intentions it will probably never occur that everyone has healthcare insurance.

If someone has a child that will never be in a condition to work, and they choose not to terminate it they should be the ones who bear the responsibility of that child. Not society.

I wasn't necessarily talking about physically or mentally disabled people. However due to the higher unemployment rate than open jobs it is, at this point, impossible for everyone to get a job.

Some would argue, and I don't know enough about economics to argue it, that the only reason that jobs are so low is because of the flawed system you have in the first place.
But again, I don't know how to argue that facet of this.

Arakasi:

Silvanus:

May I ask, do you support the idea of tax at all, and if so, what for?

For the military, for police and for the justice system. And maybe roads, I'm not sure on that one.

What about education? Welfare for the unemployed even during "Full employment"?

Semes:

Arakasi:

Silvanus:

May I ask, do you support the idea of tax at all, and if so, what for?

For the military, for police and for the justice system. And maybe roads, I'm not sure on that one.

What about education? Welfare for the unemployed even during "Full employment"?

Should that be able to occur in the system, then yes it should probably be allowed for.

Arakasi:

generals3:

But in my view it is true that the side you represent has a cruel opinion. And that's the whole point now isn't it: the fact healthcare shouldn't be "earned" but a right.

Why should someone else's hard work be your right?

For the same reason it is your right to be protected by the police force, have access to education, etc. As a society we have determined that members should be given the right to access the most basic services.

And those who steal it using the law.

Well, that's one hell of a vague concept now isn't it. A commie may argue that all the rich people are stealing from the proletariat using the law. It seems rather obvious that when you use the law you can't be stealing. You benefit from something but stealing kind of implies a breach of the legal code.

Some would argue, and I don't know enough about economics to argue it, that the only reason that jobs are so low is because of the flawed system you have in the first place.
But again, I don't know how to argue that facet of this.

Considering i've yet to hear about a perfect economic system it is hard to assume we can even fix that. The problem is that on one hand population grows and on the other hand the need of human intervention on the job market is being reduced by technology. On a bright side, thanks to technology every hour spent working creates more value and as such society can ensure an ever increasing standard of living for everyone. As long as we don't go full Darwin and decide to let the less fortunate rot.

generals3:

Arakasi:

generals3:

But in my view it is true that the side you represent has a cruel opinion. And that's the whole point now isn't it: the fact healthcare shouldn't be "earned" but a right.

Why should someone else's hard work be your right?

For the same reason it is your right to be protected by the police force, have access to education, etc. As a society we have determined that members should be given the right to access the most basic services.

I hardly see it as a right, it's just the way we've set up society. Everyone needs these things because we would all be in equal danger without it.

generals3:

And those who steal it using the law.

Well, that's one hell of a vague concept now isn't it. A commie may argue that all the rich people are stealing from the proletariat using the law. It seems rather obvious that when you use the law you can't be stealing. You benefit from something but stealing kind of implies a breach of the legal code.

It's more of a moral thing than a law thing.
I also fail to see how a communist could ever argue that, the proletariat work because they want a share of what the bourgeois have. If they were to create their own system they could also become a bourgeois.

generals3:

Some would argue, and I don't know enough about economics to argue it, that the only reason that jobs are so low is because of the flawed system you have in the first place.
But again, I don't know how to argue that facet of this.

Considering i've yet to hear about a perfect economic system it is hard to assume we can even fix that. The problem is that on one hand population grows and on the other hand the need of human intervention on the job market is being reduced by technology. On a bright side, thanks to technology every hour spent working creates more value and as such society can ensure an ever increasing standard of living for everyone. As long as we don't go full Darwin and decide to let the less fortunate rot.

The population growth thing gets to me. I think it may be partially the result of the systems we currently have, which allow the poor to reproduce and keep their young alive at such magnificent rates. Evolution never accounted for 'civilised society'. But hopefully that will be something which genetic technology can fix.

Ultrajoe:
I just thought it worth mentioning. As somebody who lives in a country with a system like Medicare (our version), it's been nothing but helpful.

Ultrajoe:
I gather as much, I certainly know the tax bite on my paychecks. I acknowledge the financial concerns that a healthcare system brings, and that I have a limited range of expertise (or any) to comment on that with, I only wanted to speak to my experiences with such a system and the way it sharply differs from a lot of hypotheticals that get passed around in discussions like this.

That's all very well and good, but like the issue of violence and subsequent discussion that shall not be named, Australia is not apples to apples with the United States. In 2012 we enacted a budget deficit as large as your GDP. Your debt as a percentage of GDP is 6%; ours is 99.8%. We have more people out of work in my nation than your entire active labour force. You also have a better overall credit rating and outlook (stable) than ours (negative). Unemployment is 5.4% to our 7.9%.

Basically, you have an economy that is working and has none of the issues the U.S. does. Tough social spending like Obamacare is going to slam Americans, who will be required to buy health insurance. In order to continue increasing spending and pay for new investments like climate change, the issue of cost comes up and so far the only solutions leaders are willing to accept is higher taxes.

It's almost obvious at this point in the U.S. that even if it did try to implement a proper socialized healthcare system, without opposition, it would look like many of our people: bloated, greedy and stupid. Everything created by our government takes after the people in charge.

This is also the nation that brought rendition and is using drones to kill its own citizens. I do not want to see what it would do if it administered a healthcare system. The FDA and EPA are scary enough.

Arakasi:

Civilised is subjective.

Uhrm, well, yes, obviously.

Silvanus:
I just said I live in a "civilized" country, and consider it so in part because of its healthcare system).

Onto the rest:

Arakasi:
I didn't say to charity, I said directly to individuals who need it for medical treatment.

Oh, I see your badly-made, irrelevant point now. Well, thankfully, with a properly subsidized system, it's not necessary. Treatment that would otherwise be way out of the financial means of 99% of people is attainable, because its paid for peacemeal.

Arakasi:

Poverty initiatives which steal money from those who earned it.
And foreign aid? I'd argue that doesn't actually help anything. Unless it's directly after a disaster, or to provide education.

So, those that had far less of a chance in life, those born into disadvantage, should remain there? You and I have far greater opportunities, right from birth, and far greater chances of both survival and making money. We didn't earn the advantages we have from birth. But you'd say we still have zero responsibility to aid those without-- we should simply live as we can, only for ourselves. Do nothing to right an inherent imbalance in our favour, in case such an initiative be seen as "stealing" from those in comfort. Right.

Arakasi:

For the military, for police and for the justice system.

How can you support theft to subsidize those systems?!

Arakasi:

I agree, it should be optional, but you then can't use that infastructure if you aren't paying for it.

Infrastructure would be unsubsidized too, then (read: wouldn't happen). Your utopia would be free of roads (unless privately-owned and thus charging the public for every trip), without community buildings or services. Without sewage systems too, I imagine, unless you can personally pay to have one installed by a private company.

Your world would be hell for all but the rich.

Healthcare shouldn't be socialized. If you have insurance for your health, then you are the one who sets the rules and pays for your care. The problem that can arise from this is twofold - one, when a company refuses to acknowledge the agreement or weasel its way out of certain costly obligations, in which time is of the essence and there is no time to spare. Two, when a person without insurance is injured and reaches a life threatening situation. It is the role of the medical professionals to save his life within reason, but further treatment shouldn't be addressed unless he is capable of paying for his treatment. The issue of high-cost health insurance policies is a problem that comes from the lack of supply, or the policy of certain providers that price gouge people. Having doctors choose their own place of work and competition between different providers can be helpful towards lowering the costs of medical procedures. Of course the issue of professional training, cost of medicine and cost of equipment is also important, because if it goes up then so does the price of the service.

With that said, food shouldn't be socialized either. You choose which foodstuff you buy, if you can afford it. If you can't afford it then there are certain programs and charities that can aide you, but they won't serve you high-quality expensive food. They will give you the bare essentials and send you on your way. Do you want to pay a flat monthly fee for the government, and then receive stamps you can use to buy certain foodstuff at the store, while high-quality food is very expensive and out of your reach? There's a joke in Russia of the '80s. "If you wash your hands with soap, you won't drink your tea with sugar".

xDarc:
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.

Not true. By then the babyboom generation will no longer be among us, the demographic transition will have been completed, and healthcare will be less in demand compared to what it is now.

The trick right now is that a demographic cohort, a generation really, is disproportionally large because of the babyboom, and we have to afford them retiring and needing healthcare and so on. That the babyboom generation wanted to eat their cake and have it didn't help much either. Taxes were kept too low, or spending was kept too high, for a very long time. The earliest reforms started in the early 80's, but some countries like the US haven't reformed to prepare for the 'grey wave' at all to date. Obamacare is pretty much the first piece of policy you can accuse of looking ahead and preparing for the babyboom generation's retirement.

For the US, the main theme will be paying the bills left unpaid by small government conservatism in the 80's and 90's. Low taxes and disinvestment back then is coming due soon, in the form of pension obligation shortfalls. Several US states and large cities are already de facto bankrupt if you include their future pension obligations on their balance.

Whatever the case, paying the bill of 30-40 years of conservatism will probably hurt, a lot.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

Poverty initiatives which steal money from those who earned it.
And foreign aid? I'd argue that doesn't actually help anything. Unless it's directly after a disaster, or to provide education.

So, those that had far less of a chance in life, those born into disadvantage, should remain there?

There is no point in helping an individual person in one of these situations, providing food just allows them to produce more people who need food without actually helping the problem. Teach a man to fish. I.e. Use education instead. But either way that should not be payed for with tax money, only through individual generousity.

Silvanus:

You and I have far greater opportunities, right from birth, and far greater chances of both survival and making money. We didn't earn the advantages we have from birth.

You're right, our parents did, if not them their parent's paretns, and so on.

Silvanus:

But you'd say we still have zero responsibility to aid those without-- we should simply live as we can, only for ourselves.

We do have 0 responsibility to the less fortunate, but that doesn't mean one can't help them anyway.

Silvanus:
Do nothing to right an inherent imbalance in our favour, in case such an initiative be seen as "stealing" from those in comfort. Right.

Again, I am not telling you to do nothing, I am saying that people shouldn't be forced to do anything.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

For the military, for police and for the justice system.

How can you support theft to subsidize those systems?!

Taxes, equal to all, because everyone uses these systems equally.

Silvanus:

Arakasi:

I agree, it should be optional, but you then can't use that infastructure if you aren't paying for it.

Infrastructure would be unsubsidized too, then (read: wouldn't happen). Your utopia would be free of roads (unless privately-owned and thus charging the public for every trip), without community buildings or services. Without sewage systems too, I imagine, unless you can personally pay to have one installed by a private company.

If the government can rely on a relatively small income (taxes) to provide those services to each individual, than so could a private company, not only that but they would have motivation to do it for a cheap price due to competition. As for roads and sewage systems, those would probably be taxes I would have as default on, but can be taken off if the individual does not use these systems.

Silvanus:

Your world would be hell for all but the rich.

I beg to differ.

Arakasi:
There is no point in helping an individual person in one of these situations, providing food just allows them to produce more people who need food without actually helping the problem.

Any chance of you proving the extremely unlikely and rather strange suggestion that anyway who's not rich, just exists to breed more kids?

You see, if you don't, that means it was just some sort of silly prejudice or hatred against anyone not born in a rich family, and would be rather negative to your credibility, so it's important to back that sort of claims up.

Arakasi:
If the government can rely on a relatively small income (taxes) to provide those services to each individual, than so could a private company

But that's not possible, because not everyone can afford all their own needs at any given point in time. So, to build on that, neither could a private company, and therefore a way of collectively arranging that is needed.

Also, that's needed to overcome the problem of shortsightedness. People may not see the benefits of something which is necessary. Actually overcoming that is what most spatial planning is about. If you leave that to private parties, nothing would ever get done, because there's always someone opposed to something. You need a government to weigh interests and make decisions.

Arakasi:

There is no point in helping an individual person in one of these situations, providing food just allows them to produce more people who need food without actually helping the problem. Teach a man to fish. I.e. Use education instead. But either way that should not be payed for with tax money, only through individual generousity.

"Teach a man to fish" is a pretty useful phrase, and conveys a very relevant message, albeit ignoring the truth on the ground that sometimes providing subsistence is necessary. Farmland, irrigation, education etc require time and an immense, concerted effort to prepare sufficiently. Foreign aid & charity work DOES go onto these long-term solutions. That doesn't mean it's right to withhold life-saving food in the interim. These areas won't transform overnight; it'll take decades or more of concerted investment and development. "Teach a man to fish" is another pretty simplistic justification, in truth.

Arakasi:

You're right, our parents did, if not them their parent's paretns, and so on.

Quite possibly true. Explain to me why you have a greater right to relative luxury, by luck of birth?

And yet, I wouldn't even take that unearned comfort away from you.

Arakasi:

We do have 0 responsibility to the less fortunate, but that doesn't mean one can't help them anyway.

No point in debating this point further. I believe relying on charity is insufficient, and you seem to agree (you've pointed out how money is more important to people than life), but not to care.

Arakasi:

Again, I am not telling you to do nothing, I am saying that people shouldn't be forced to do anything.

"Forced" in the same way you're "forced" to pay other taxes. You agree to some taxes, but not to others, so let's drop the colourful and misrepresentative language, hrmm?

Arakasi:

Taxes, equal to all, because everyone uses these systems equally.

No, everybody doesn't use the police & justice system equally at all.

Arakasi:

There is no point in helping an individual person in one of these situations, providing food just allows them to produce more people who need food without actually helping the problem. Teach a man to fish. I.e. Use education instead. But either way that should not be payed for with tax money, only through individual generousity.

You're not saying "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime."

What you're saying translates more into...

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away, beat him up and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another fish for you to take tomorrow."

Plus, you know, I'd rather have healthcare accessible to people instead of risking epidemics, as well. Diseases spread quite alarmingly if a large part of the society can't protect themselves from contracting them; or can't afford to be cured.

And germs, well? They don't really care much whether you're rich or poor. And you can't stock up on antibiotics forever, lest you create indestructible strains of germs.

Arakasi:

I hardly see it as a right, it's just the way we've set up society. Everyone needs these things because we would all be in equal danger without it.

Surely you would agree with me that having more people with diseases puts everyone in danger? So even if you assume a selfish stance that it is to protect yourself universal healthcare is the logical way to go.

It's more of a moral thing than a law thing.
I also fail to see how a communist could ever argue that, the proletariat work because they want a share of what the bourgeois have. If they were to create their own system they could also become a bourgeois.

Considering i ain't a commie i won't make their case however overhead could throw a couple of theories at you if you want.

The population growth thing gets to me. I think it may be partially the result of the systems we currently have, which allow the poor to reproduce and keep their young alive at such magnificent rates. Evolution never accounted for 'civilised society'. But hopefully that will be something which genetic technology can fix.

Actually, evolution never accounted for "money to compensate for weaknesses". If you're going to go full eugenics do it right. Wealth is by no means a good determinant to whom should survive or not. Genetic quality is.

Blablahb:
...the babyboom generation will no longer be among us, the demographic transition will have been completed, and healthcare will be less in demand compared to what it is now.

The trick right now is that a demographic cohort, a generation really, is disproportionally large because of the babyboom, and we have to afford them retiring and needing healthcare and so on. That the babyboom generation wanted to eat their cake and have it didn't help much either. Taxes were kept too low, or spending was kept too high, for a very long time. The earliest reforms started in the early 80's, but some countries like the US haven't reformed to prepare for the 'grey wave' at all to date. Obamacare is pretty much the first piece of policy you can accuse of looking ahead and preparing for the babyboom generation's retirement.

For the US, the main theme will be paying the bills left unpaid by small government conservatism in the 80's and 90's.

While the baby boom bubble is real and a has a substantial impact on the U.S. economy (Social Security, Medicare, healthcare costs) I would argue the opposite: it is (partly) because of this massive bubble of seniors that healthcare costs have been high. It's enormous consumption of resources and professional time to take care of elderly because of deteriorating health.

What Obamacare is doing with the insurance mandate is a big government approach that's going to add millions more people to the system. Where is the infrastructure and supply of professionals to meet this influx? I've been hearing multiple cases here that there aren't enough doctors.

And you are completely upside down in attacking the baby boomers for screwing the future generations. They were the last hard-working generation. Today there are record numbers of people on welfare and the fed has added trillions to the debt in the last decade or so, which has come in large part from widespread expansion of social spending, the complete antithesis of small government economics. Pension boondoggles are also a product of heavy-handed government; I should know, I live in a state that is a black hole of unfunded pension liability - it did not come from tightening the belt too far.

With respect you do not understand what's gone on in my country and should stop repeating these bogus attacks on conservatism.

AgedGrunt:
What Obamacare is doing with the insurance mandate is a big government approach that's going to add millions more people to the system. Where is the infrastructure and supply of professionals to meet this influx? I've been hearing multiple cases here that there aren't enough doctors.

The infrastructure will form itself. Because people will have acces to healthcare due to the changes in how it's being paid for, it becomes commercially viable to also provide the needed healthcare to the middle class and the lower class, and the market will create the needed healthcare facilities.

How can the US not have enough doctors for its population? Because over 50 million people were deprived of healthcare. That's 50 million potential consumers of healthcare not 'buying' (although healthcare is only gotten from necessity of course) and therefore leaving jobs uncreated.

So stuff like Medicare and Medicaid effectively create jobs at almost 100% efficiency of every dollar spent on it, and that's just the side-effect.

AgedGrunt:
And you are completely upside down in attacking the baby boomers for screwing the future generations.

No I'm not. They're the ones who didn't plan ahead more than five years, and the reason our generation gets to pay the bills for them living large from wealth which effectively wasn't there because it should've been invested in the future.

In the case of many EU countries, various social security measures should've been reformed at least a decade earlier, and for the US, low taxes became unaffordable in the early 90's already, probably even earlier.

They ate their cake, and continue to want to have it as well, effectively pushing their own bills on to the next generation to pay.

By the way, you blame more people being on wellfare. That's not true. The expansions were made because they were needed. Before that time people quite simply perished and family members were heavily (and unfairly) burdened by having to keep their relatives from starving. That system damages the economy on a structural level because people can't spend. Wellfare at the level of the US, means that every additional dollar spent on it is far more effective and earns itself back.

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.

A well thought out argument?

Okay. Mind you this is not MY opinion, but it is indeed an argument.

I do not like [X group], I do not want them to continue living and the prevention of social healthcare will assist in the deaths of [X group].

A logically sound argument, based purely in rationality.

Again, not my opinion, but its a valid argument. (as fucked up as it is.)

Blablahb:
The infrastructure will form itself. Because people will have acces to healthcare due to the changes in how it's being paid for, it becomes commercially viable to also provide the needed healthcare to the middle class and the lower class, and the market will create the needed healthcare facilities.

How can the US not have enough doctors for its population? Because over 50 million people were deprived of healthcare. That's 50 million potential consumers of healthcare not 'buying' (although healthcare is only gotten from necessity of course) and therefore leaving jobs uncreated.

Whoa, whoa, suddenly we're looking at consumers and are all about letting the market handle things? I thought we hated small government approaches? No, the infrastructure does not form itself; doctors do not sprout from the ground. Education costs are staggering and have been skyrocketing in modern times (thank you again, government). Student debt has topped $1 trillion; doctors and hospitals are not going to start popping up to meet demand. In fact a lot of professionals are not happy about Obamacare.

Blablahb:
So stuff like Medicare and Medicaid effectively create jobs at almost 100% efficiency of every dollar spent on it, and that's just the side-effect.

By the way, you blame more people being on wellfare. That's not true. The expansions were made because they were needed. Before that time people quite simply perished and family members were heavily (and unfairly) burdened by having to keep their relatives from starving. That system damages the economy on a structural level because people can't spend. Wellfare at the level of the US, means that every additional dollar spent on it is far more effective and earns itself back.

The benefits programs above do not create jobs or grow the economy, they provide something to millions at the expense of other millions. It's cost. If they were boons then U.S. wouldn't be stagnated in unemployment, weak growth and inundated with enormous deficits and debt. I've no idea how one can link such programs to growth or even claim neutrality.

45% of U.S. 2012 budget went to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone. Now add unemployment, housing, education and all kinds of tax breaks, not forgetting about a big progressive tax system that alleviates burden from those with small earnings. This is just at the Federal level. We do try to take care of everyone and we are paying for it by borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, with spending increasing each year.

Of course if one listens to our ruling party and its lemmings, they'd believe spending is not the program and that the can should be kicked down the road.

Look at certain procedures like Laser Eye Surgery.

LES is not usually covered by insurance companies so the whole cost has to be paid out of pocket. In the early part of this century the procedure did cost $2000+ per eye. Do to the demand of the procedure more clinics opened to fill that. Competition then caused them to lower their prices, improve quality, and help push more advancements of technology in the area.

Now there have been clinics that started popping up around the country that don't except any health insurance as well. They have prices that range from $50 for a check up to around $500 for other procedures.

Now onto the topic of denial of service, as bad as this sounds, I don't blame them. Look at it this way, you and five of your friends have been pooling money together for the last six years for just in case emergencies. Every month all of you put $40 dollars in to the pool. After that six years you have $17280. Now lets someone else joins the pool and after three months needs surgery but it costs $6000. So that $6000 surgery cost him $120, you would be suspicious wouldn't you? At the same time though your best friend gets cancer and needs treatment but this costs $15000. That original pool you had of $17280 reduced to $11280 and your friend's treatment costs $15000. That leaves $3720 for him to pay out of pocket on top of the original $2880 he put in.

PMorgan18:
Look at certain procedures like Laser Eye Surgery.

LES is not usually covered by insurance companies so the whole cost has to be paid out of pocket. In the early part of this century the procedure did cost $2000+ per eye. Do to the demand of the procedure more clinics opened to fill that. Competition then caused them to lower their prices, improve quality, and help push more advancements of technology in the area.

Now there have been clinics that started popping up around the country that don't except any health insurance as well. They have prices that range from $50 for a check up to around $500 for other procedures.

Now onto the topic of denial of service, as bad as this sounds, I don't blame them. Look at it this way, you and five of your friends have been pooling money together for the last six years for just in case emergencies. Every month all of you put $40 dollars in to the pool. After that six years you have $17280. Now lets someone else joins the pool and after three months needs surgery but it costs $6000. So that $6000 surgery cost him $120, you would be suspicious wouldn't you? At the same time though your best friend gets cancer and needs treatment but this costs $15000. That original pool you had of $17280 reduced to $11280 and your friend's treatment costs $15000. That leaves $3720 for him to pay out of pocket on top of the original $2880 he put in.

1st: The assumption there is no desire to innovate and improve quality under a universal healthcare system is ludicrous at best. Hospitals and clinics in countries with universal healthcare don't use equipment from the 80's. There are actually a lot of countries with universal healthcare which score extremely high on healthcare rankings.

2nd: The pool example is flawed because you forgot to mention the guy who just got his 6k surgery is expected to continue contributing to the pool.

Jayemsal:

A well thought out argument?

Okay. Mind you this is not MY opinion, but it is indeed an argument.

I do not like [X group], I do not want them to continue living and the prevention of social healthcare will assist in the deaths of [X group].

A logically sound argument, based purely in rationality.

Again, not my opinion, but its a valid argument. (as fucked up as it is.)

Not incredibly well thought out or rational, really.

See, if "Group X" is denied basic healthcare sure they will start to die off, but, contagious diseases have this nasty habit of not only targeting "Group X". They will spread to others too, including the guy who made the argument. Furthermore, "Group X" is going to start developing resistance to the disease.

So, it's not too rational as it ignores a couple of quite important pragmatic concerns. The assumption that welfare, universal healthcare and the like are only meant to help the less fortunate is flawed. It protects others as well, since if the less fortunate people start having it too tough, either financially or health-wise, the tough times will not remain isolated.

generals3:

1st: The assumption there is no desire to innovate and improve quality under a universal healthcare system is ludicrous at best. Hospitals and clinics in countries with universal healthcare don't use equipment from the 80's. There are actually a lot of countries with universal healthcare which score extremely high on healthcare rankings.

2nd: The pool example is flawed because you forgot to mention the guy who just got his 6k surgery is expected to continue contributing to the pool.

3rd: To me it also looks like as if the assumption is awfully close to "people get sick so that they drain the public health pool".

AgedGrunt:
The benefits programs above do not create jobs or grow the economy

That's provably untrue: The people treated under those programs, are treated by doctors, nurses, and the establishment it took place had to be built, has to be maintained, cleaned, it requires an organisation, administration, all of which creates jobs.

AgedGrunt:
If they were boons then U.S. wouldn't be stagnated in unemployment, weak growth and inundated with enormous deficits and debt. I've no idea how one can link such programs to growth or even claim neutrality.

Now you're reasoning on the premise that those two programs control the US economy. But they don't.

One thing I do know however. Suppose some conservative seized power tomorrow and cancelled those programs, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost and the US economy would go right down into another recession.

AgedGrunt:
45% of U.S. 2012 budget went to Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security alone. Now add unemployment, housing, education and all kinds of tax breaks, not forgetting about a big progressive tax system that alleviates burden from those with small earnings. This is just at the Federal level. We do try to take care of everyone and we are paying for it by borrowing 40 cents on the dollar, with spending increasing each year.

The US doesn't have big progressive taxes. It has dangerously small taxes that are regressive under many conditions. Neither is the US taking care of everyone. There's bitter poverty, tent cities, lots of health problems and 50 million+ uninsured.

The problem is the people who can without any trouble contribute a lot more, are not doing that because conservatives have made is so that they hardly pay any taxes while they're quite or extremly wealthy.

Not just that, but it's that small government conservatism which is costing so much. A large part of the costs of health programs by the US government right now, are caused because people are uninsured and insurance is deregulated and expensive. They postpone seeking help, and when they finally can't wait anymore, the costs are much higher.

Here's something I've been told by a conservative (in regards to healthcare in the United States, as an argument against Obama Care):

The reason healthcare is so expensive, is for two main reasons (outside of medical equipment and hiring doctors isn't cheap in the US): 1) Those who actually can pay for their healthcare (along with the contribution from their insurance) pay for those who can't pay/don't have health insurance. 2) Mal-practice lawsuits are really expensive.

A doctor has to make a lot of money, and health insurance and care has to be expensive so those who can't pay can be taken care of and so a doctor can survive a mal-practice suit--should one occur. When you pay say, $400 to fix your broken leg and your insurance kicks in the other $600. Some pays for the cast, some pays for the doctor's time, and the rest pays for the next person who comes on off the street with a broken leg and can't pay and/or doesn't have insurance. The hospital (with rare exceptions) still will treat you, even if you can't pay. Thus the insane cost of healthcare here.

Thus, systems for providing healthcare for everyone are already in place, but now we are being taxed to pay for Obama Care, which has no clear direction or point. It will just do what the premium price of healthcare in the US already does.

---

I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it's something I've been told. It seems to make sense to me, but it likely has holes that I'm not seeing. As to how families end up with huge medical bills they can't pay? I'm not sure, as I thought if the above system worked, how does that happen? What about all the poverty-striken that cannot get the help they need? I'm not sure.

In conclusion, I don't know. I ez 2 stoopid and ignorant.

Inconspicuous Trenchcoat:
I'm not sure how accurate this is, but it's something I've been told. It seems to make sense to me, but it likely has holes that I'm not seeing.

In the case of what you wrote, the problem is diagnosed accurately, but the conclusion is all wrong.

Basically it reasoned:
not everybody pays -> so the people who pay, pay more -> so not paying is a problem.
And that's essentially correct.

But then, u-turn:
Obamacare stops people who can from not paying (solving this part of the problem) -> thus Obamacare is bad
And that's all wrong.

Also it's correct that Obamacare will redistribute the problem of people not being able to afford healthcare to taxation, but that shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. When your hospital bill is higher due to someone else being too poor to pay, it depends on bad luck if you contribute extra to healthcare (because you only go to a hospital when you need it).
If it's just part of taxation, everybody pays their fair share, so everybody can receive the healthcare they need.

Blablahb:
The people treated under those programs, are treated by doctors, nurses, and the establishment it took place had to be built, has to be maintained, cleaned, it requires an organisation, administration, all of which creates jobs.

Welfare programs didn't create the sick or needy; spending power is redistributed. While technically that does mean more "consumers", a program like Medicaid only pays a fraction of what private insurers do. In short when you compare new patient data, based on insurance, physicians favor self-pay and privately insured. If these programs mean providing more care and making less money for doing it, what do you expect happens?

Blablahb:
Now you're reasoning on the premise that those two programs control the US economy. But they don't.

One thing I do know however. Suppose some conservative seized power tomorrow and cancelled those programs...

The US doesn't have big progressive taxes. It has dangerously small taxes...

Neither is the US taking care of everyone... bitter poverty, tent cities, lots of health problems and 50 million+ uninsured.

...it's that small government conservatism which is costing so much

I didn't reason those programs control the economy, I pointed out the significant investment. And there's no push for canceling them, but they do need reforms.

There are big progressive taxes when a large portion of federal income tax comes from the top and half the people in the nation do not pay that tax. More tax increases on the wealthy just passed, in fact.

Speaking of facts, you lack them, and are just making things up now. I'm no longer contributing to your mendacious tirades.

AgedGrunt:

Welfare programs didn't create the sick or needy; spending power is redistributed. While technically that does mean more "consumers", a program like Medicaid only pays a fraction of what private insurers do. In short when you compare new patient data, based on insurance, physicians favor self-pay and privately insured. If these programs mean providing more care and making less money for doing it, what do you expect happens?

You can't compare Medicaid to socialized medicine. Medicaid is severely underfunded. From what I can tell medicaid isn't directly funded by income taxes it's funded out of a general fund. If people where directly funding the program and everyone where part of it we'd be getting the money that would have been going to insurance companies. The only difference is we're taking out the middle man that needs to produce a profit, the government doesn't need one besides retaining a "rainy day" fund.

AgedGrunt:

Welfare programs didn't create the sick or needy; spending power is redistributed. While technically that does mean more "consumers", a program like Medicaid only pays a fraction of what private insurers do. In short when you compare new patient data, based on insurance, physicians favor self-pay and privately insured. If these programs mean providing more care and making less money for doing it, what do you expect happens?

But that's the core of the problem, that medicine and healthcare are seen as "business". I mean, sure you need to pay the doctors and everything, and manage your finances to stay afloat, but medicine should not be about making profits, it's a profession that should first and foremost exist to help people who need medical attention. It's one of those professions that hold up the foundations of the society so they don't collapse.

And besides, since even in the "business" model, people mostly aren't just left in the street to die, but they're only treated when their health has deteriorated to the point it costs a lot more to patch them up than it would have if they had at least some basic socialized insurance, that's a bit of an example of pissing into your own bowl, so to say. And if you do start leaving people to die in the streets because they don't have the funds to afford treatment, well, I think CDC will have their hands full rather soon.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked