universal health care sucks

[bryantm3]

okay, now i just told deckard that i would play devil's advocate on another forum, but this is actually an issue i believe in.

i'm about to go to bed, but before i do, here are some brief points:

1. those that can afford health care get it for free on the backs of lower income taxpayers
2. government determines all prices and takes care of all medical transactions. we all know government is terribly inefficient. check out the current US budget. whether you're a left-winger or right-winger you can't deny that there is an ABSURD amount of waste in the government. it is a common practice in many sectors of government to spend money they don't even need so the funding stays at the same level. government ends up spending way too much on health care, taxpayers end up paying too much, and the economy suffers
3. there is no system of competition— this means two things, first, prices can be manipulated when there is only one source for a good or service, and secondly, there is no alternative for those seeking better health care. say, for example, someone comes down with cancer and is above the age of 65. the government could determine that they weren't worth paying for since they were out of the workforce, and refuse treatment. but get this: you can't just stop paying if you aren't happy with your health care, or if they refuse to pay for life-saving treatments that free-market health care would pay for. you're stuck, your account is still getting drained for health care (through taxes) and you can't afford an alternate
4. this is just a personal opinion; it goes against free market principle. it's communism. it's not the government's duty to take over an entire sector of the economy that could be paid for privately.

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

okay, now i just told deckard that i would play devil's advocate on another forum, but this is actually an issue i believe in.

i'm about to go to bed, but before i do, here are some brief points:

those that can afford health care get it for free on the backs of lower income taxpayers

Just some quick notes before I fall asleep: How do they get it "for free"? Don't those who "can afford health care" automatically support the system with their financial contributions? Over here in the old world, you're charged a fixed ratio of your income, i. e., if you earn more you pay more. (Sorry, I have no idea how the proposed US system of health care will be paid for.)

Originally Posted by bryantm3

this is just a personal opinion; it goes against free market principle. it's communism. it's not the government's duty to take over an entire sector of the economy that could be paid for privately.

What about the people that have up to now been neglected, i. e., those poor bastards who can't afford medical assistance? There are sectors of the economy which even a capitalist SOCIAL market has to have available for everyone. Access to water, electricity, waste disposal are generally considered such services; shortly, broadband Internet access will be, too.

Your "argument" that "it's communism" sounds old-fashioned and dogmatic. Even if it were a communist system - which it isn't -, why would that automatically render the idea bad?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

The gubbanment cheeses took over everything else that should have been paid for privately(auto/banking/porking), so why didn't it matter there? I'm not being a smartass, just wonderin'.

AND

The Democratic guy ran with the same idea the Republican guy before him was planning to do, so don't make this a "party"-lines debate.

[stimpee]

i'm about to go to bed, but before i do, here are some brief points:

1. those that can afford health care get it for free on the backs of lower income taxpayers Well, yes people should have access to medical care. Basic human right IMHO. Those that can also not afford health care get it for free on the backs of higher income taxpayers too.
2. government determines all prices and takes care of all medical transactions. we all know government is terribly inefficient. Proof please. check out the current US budget. A budget that has been set and is very inflexible because of the overspending of the previous government. whether you're a left-winger or right-winger you can't deny that there is an ABSURD amount of waste in the government. it is a common practice in many sectors of government to spend money they don't even need so the funding stays at the same level. I dont see your point here. government ends up spending way too much on health care, taxpayers end up paying too much, and the economy suffers Actually, the US government doesnt spend very much on health care compared to the rest of the Western world.
3. there is no system of competition— this means two things, first, prices can be manipulated when there is only one source for a good or service Of course there is competition. There will always be a choice. Companies will always find a way to add value and give something extra that people want. Thats how things work in a free market. and secondly, there is no alternative for those seeking better health care. See previous sentence. say, for example, someone comes down with cancer and is above the age of 65. the government could determine that they weren't worth paying for since they were out of the workforce, and refuse treatment. but get this: you can't just stop paying if you aren't happy with your health care, or if they refuse to pay for life-saving treatments that free-market health care would pay for. you're stuck, your account is still getting drained for health care (through taxes) and you can't afford an alternate I pay out a minimum of $2000 a year for compulsory health care most of which I dont use. I know that if I get really sick, the costs will be absorbed and taken care of. Its how the insurance system works.
4. this is just a personal opinion; it goes against free market principle. it's communism. it's not the government's duty to take over an entire sector of the economy that could be paid for privately. Again, the government is not taking over the entire sector. And the UK has had the National Health Service post-WWII. You pay your "National Insurance" and you get taken care of. It might not be the best (and its not), but they'll take care of you and the option of private health care has always been available and its very popular. AFAIK the UK isnt a Communist state.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by froopy seal

Just some quick notes before I fall asleep: How do they get it "for free"? Don't those who "can afford health care" automatically support the system with their financial contributions? Over here in the old world, you're charged a fixed ratio of your income, i. e., if you earn more you pay more. (Sorry, I have no idea how the proposed US system of health care will be paid for.)

currently we have a progressive income tax, so, yes, that is how it will work. but taxes are high enough over here. even if you make less than $10,000 a year, you still have to pay a 6% payroll tax to cover medicare and medicaid. imagine what that would turn into with a national healthcare system. about 50% of the budget is already allotted to entitlement spending, which isn't even called for in the constitution— the government is terribly in debt. i don't think we can even support that kind of system.

Originally Posted by froopy seal

What about the people that have up to now been neglected, i. e., those poor bastards who can't afford medical assistance? There are sectors of the economy which even a capitalist SOCIAL market has to have available for everyone. Access to water, electricity, waste disposal are generally considered such services; shortly, broadband Internet access will be, too.

Your "argument" that "it's communism" sounds old-fashioned and dogmatic. Even if it were a communist system - which it isn't -, why would that automatically render the idea bad?

it doesn't work exactly like that in the US. we have medicaid for lower income people, you can apply for it and it's free. the problem is in the middle class— there's a gap in the middle class where people don't make enough to afford healthcare but they also don't make little enough to apply for medicaid. there have been some steps to solve this problem such as s-chip, which fills the gap in health care for kids under the age of 18.

these aren't poor people, mind you— they just can't find a place in their budget to pay for health care, whose price has skyrocketed (i'm one of those people, i'd like to disclose). having government pay for everyone's health care isn't *solving* the problem, it's just throwing money at it. the price of health care has gone up extremely high, not because of the insurance companies, but because of the medical industry itself. we have life-saving medicines that are patented and the patents last 20 years (they used to last 16). during this time period, drug companies do all they can to make sure everyone is using their new drug, with marketing to physicians, patients and hospitals, and they drive the price up to outrageous amounts of $30-100 for just one pill. in addition, hospitals are an extremely lucrative business and charge hundreds of dollars for something as basic as an MRI, when MRIs in japan cost something like $90. the US government is being lobbyed by the medical companies to keep tariffs in place and restrict free trade between countries for medical equipment and medicine, to support the US industries. unfortunately, this drives medical prices through the roof— in a similar example, MRI machines in japan are extremely cheap in comparison to the GE ones here— but hospitals don't buy from japan because of what i mentioned above.

having the government pay for your health care and support all this nonsense is not solving the problem, it's perpetuating it.

[Deckard]

I don't think any system is perfect, but on the whole I've been very happy with the NHS. Perhaps that's just a case of 'better the devil you know'. Or perhaps I'm justified in happening to consider healthcare to be one area in which society benefits from a more socialist approach.

One thing's for sure: supporting universal healthcare doesn't mean we oppose free market principles in other areas (or even in general). Far from it. I don't think capitalism is evil. And the last time I checked, Britain's clinics and hospitals weren't in the grip of drab communist uniformity.

Some years ago, when I was able to afford private healthcare, I never once resented paying my National Insurance so that those on lower incomes could take advantage of free health care. I just felt fortunate that I was in a position to go private if I wanted.

[bryantm3]

yeah, i was hoping for a good debate on here— but then i started listing my points and everyone kind of just gave up.

i think there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution for every country to take, especially on this topic. given the united states' history and general political views (hell, we started this country because of taxes), the size of the country, etc., universal health care is a terrible choice here. but i guess i could see in a smaller country it might work better if everyone agreed on it.