Support NeoGAF

[CornBurrito]

Remove the tax incentive for charity and watch it go poof. It's a nice way for conservatives to alleviate any guilt they may have when championing selfish go fuck yourself policy. If charity made a damn bit of difference, we wouldn't need to have this discussion.

You have to appreciate the irony of a dude saying "why should I pay for someone else's misfortune?" in the next breath talking about private charity as a solution. You can just see the intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Elfotografoalocado]

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

They are evil because they are willingly and consciously hurting society at large, with no financial gain and the only personal gain of feeling superior to their brethren and fellow Americans. It's a treason to the United States and its people, and it's apalling.
We in Spain spend 8.4% of our GDP in healthcare, against your 17%. Those are resources you could be spending in being richer and living better, but you choose not to just in order to feel better about yourself. I call that evil.
I don't want you dead, but you want innocent people dead.

You have to appreciate the irony of a dude saying "why should I pay for someone else's misfortune?" in the next breath talking about private charity as a solution. You can just see the intellectual dishonesty.

That's the charming thing about charity. You get to look into the eyes of people poorer than you and just see how grateful they are to you, and that they know you could be withdrawing that at any moment, so they better behave well.

 

[Cocaloch]

No, that's not at all what I've done. I use the word "statistically" and all of a sudden, I need to provide some sort of statistic that you request or else nothing that I've posted has meaning & value? Please.

You refereed to statistics and then are shocked when people want to see them?

LOL --- OK, I have to enter back in here. You reference Canada as an example of a universal healthcare system with a size almost the same as the US.

Canada has a population of 36 million. The biggest country anyone has quoted is the UK, which has population of 65 million.

The US has a population of 325 million.

Just because a country is the same geographical size as another doesn't mean it is the same "size" when it comes to free universal healthcare.

But if I wasn't here being the one person going against the hive mindset in this thread, everyone would just read your post and agree with it.........."oh, yes.....Canada the same size as the US........of course! See? Why doesn't the US have universal healthcare? Canada and the US ar ethe same size! It would be so easy! They should just do it!" .........................

You wanted statistics ---- well, there is one for you.

So you're saying we can only compare the US to Brazil and Indonesia because they are the only countries with populations even somewhat close to ours? Also shouldn't lower population countries be less efficient because they lose out on economies of scale?

 

[Fenderputty]

Aren't the people that are making an argument based on a specific definition of right using an inherently less nebulous definition of right than those who aren't defining it?

This is a weird point.

The fact that anyone has any definition that may or may not agree with another is why it's nebulous. Here's my post that clarifies my position some

I don't necessarily like framing this is a "basic human right". There is no such thing. We make them up. We change them. We redefine them. We manipulate them. We systematically make "basic human right" feel different to different people.

I suppose it's more of a semantics issue, but I prefer to just think of it as being "decent". It's not even "Good" in the altruistic sense. It's just being decent. Especially when we're the richest and supposedly the most pious country on the planet. It also happens to be the most practical thing to do as well.

Like Fluffernutter Pancakes is making some argument about rights and shit when he should just stop to think, "Am I a terrible person for making this argument?"

Considering he finally shifted to "what if I just don't want to pay" ... it appears as though he still hasn't looked lol

 

[shiyrley]

You have to appreciate the irony of a dude saying "why should I pay for someone else's misfortune?" in the next breath talking about private charity as a solution. You can just see the intellectual dishonesty.

I mean, he completely fucked up the very second he switched from "it isn't viable / possible" to "I don't want to pay for it". It's like all of the points he could make up had already been debunked so he had no choice but to be honest.

 

[Reivaxe]

Question is "is healthcare a right?".

Real question should be "should your life's worth to this nation as a human be dictated by how much money you or your parents make? Even if you contribute what amount you're asked in taxes?"

If your nation is big enough to do healthcare for all it SHOULD value it's people enough to take care of them.
But that's just me though ... one of a few reasons I wanna go to Canada.

 

[Cocaloch]

The fact that anyone has any definition that may or may not agree with another is why it's nebulous. Here's my post that clarifies my position some



Considering he finally shifted to "what if I just don't want to pay" ... it appears as though he still hasn't looked lol

I agree with what you quoted there, I just don't think it's fair to call those looking at how they define rights as using nebulous definitions. Nebulous means vague and ill defined, not contested. Any word with serious philosophical weight behind it is going to have conflicting definitions. Which is to say my problem seems to be that you're taking issue with definitions of rights based on some conception of a platonically correct definition of right that other definitions diverge from. Such a definition does not exist for any word.

As I said in the my first post in the thread, I believe we should avoid the language of rights here. It's not particularly useful and it gives libertarians some wiggle room. As you say, it's not about rights, it's about not being a terrible person at a very low level.

Evil: "profoundly immoral and malevolent." "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force."

So if someone doesn't want to pay for another's misfortune be it due to bad luck, bad decisions, or a combination of the two, then they are evil?

That's an extreme view if I've ever seen one. Why don't we just lock up (or execute?) everyone that disagrees with you?

It's not if someone doesn't want to pay, it's that someone doesn't want society to pay.

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

I think evil is a bit strong, but you still have a fundamentally horrible viewpoint because we can extrapolate your thinking to other situations.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

Aha! It's not that it isn't viable. It's that you don't want to pay for it. You just admitted to it. Thank you very much for proving what I was suspecting. And yes, if you aren't okay with the concept of sightly higher taxes so that everyone in the country is allowed to have healthcare and therefore have the right to be alive, yeah, you are evil. Also you ignored the parts of the post you weren't able to counter, as usual.

This debate is now over and you are not the winner.

LOL --- a system not being viable & the concept of not agreeing with compulsory payment into a potentially unviable system are two separate aspects of a topic. One can argue for or against either of them --- they are not linked.

But pat yourself on the back! You've won! You are right, and I am not only wrong, but evil!

Why does this sort of hyperbolic labeling tend to happen when someone goes against the grain around here? It's unnecessary and gets in the way of the actual discussion.

 

[Cocaloch]

Why then do I have the right to a fair trial, a right to an attorney, and a right to a jury of my peers?

All of that requires the labor of others.

The theory is that those are enumerated rights not natural ones. Asking in the abstract, which is how the question is posed, would imply the OP is after the more interesting question of if it's a natural right. If you're just talking about what legal rights are in effect then the answer to the question obviously varies by country.

Crazy idea: Maybe we'd have more doctors if higher education was subsidized? A lot of people avoid higher education and medical school because of the expense. Medical students have lots of medical debt to pay off.

Maybe if everyone were provided with free or subsidized higher education, we'd have more doctors. Instead of having someone with the misfortune being born poor working at a 7/11 trying to make ends meet on poverty wages, we could have a heart surgeon.

The number of doctors we have isn't limited by education. It's limited by state licensing. Moreover the reason healthcare in the US is expensive isn't the salary of doctors. That's always been a red-herring from the bootstrap types.

 

[Gravy Boat]

LOL --- a system not being viable & the concept of not agreeing with compulsory payment into a potentially unviable system are two separate aspects of a topic. One can argue for or against either of them --- they are not linked.

But pat yourself on the back! You've won! You are right, and I am not only wrong, but evil!

Why does this sort of hyperbolic labeling tend to happen when someone goes against the grain around here? It's unnecessary and gets in the way of the actual discussion.

You literally said that a family should have to pay for their child’s cancer treatment on their own, or rely on generous voluntary donations. Extortionate costs that no family could afford unless they were incredibly wealthy. You’d sooner see that child die that live in a society where that cost is shared and the child gets to live because the treatment is affordable.

 

[Fenderputty]

I agree with what you quoted there, I just don't think it's fair to call those looking at how they define rights as using nebulous definitions. Nebulous means vague and ill defined, not contested. Any word with serious philosophical weight behind it is going to have conflicting definitions. Which is to say my problem seems to be that you're taking issue with definitions of rights based on some conception of a platonically correct definition of right that other definitions diverge from. Such a definition does not exist for any word.

As I said in the my first post in the thread, I believe we should avoid the language of rights here. It's not particularly useful and it gives libertarians some wiggle room. As you say, it's not about rights, it's about not being a terrible person at a very low level.

If someone can and does change the definition of a term, doesn't that imply that the term itself is poorly defined? Either way ... semantics is the reason I don't like to use the word in the first place. It's the wiggle room as you said.

 

[Cocaloch]

LOL --- a system not being viable & the concept of not agreeing with compulsory payment into a potentially unviable system are two separate aspects of a topic. One can argue for or against either of them --- they are not linked.

But pat yourself on the back! You've won! You are right, and I am not only wrong, but evil!

Why does this sort of hyperbolic labeling tend to happen when someone goes against the grain around here? It's unnecessary and gets in the way of the actual discussion.

Sure, but generally one argues for what one believes. The implication here is that you never believed it was nonviable and just used that as a front for your actual argument, that you don't want to pay.

You're right that people shouldn't be rude, but it's silly that you think its a "around here" thing. People are rude everywhere.

 

[shiyrley]

Sure, but generally one argues for what one believes. The implication here is that you never believed it was nonviable and just used that as a front for your actual argument, that you don't want to pay.

You're right that people shouldn't be rude, but its silly that you think its a "around here" thing. People are rude everywhere.

Hey - I admit I was being rude. But I don't believe it was wrong to be rude. Because I don't see any reason not to be rude with someone who doesn't respect my life. I mean, if I lived in the USA, and I had the same cancer I had here, this person would be completely fine with the concept of me losing my eye or dying because of not having enough money to pay the surgeries or even detect the cancer in the first place.

The only reason I wasn't even more rude is that I don't intend to be banned.

Ugh, it makes me SICK to even think about the situation. "Hey, you can pay this insane amount to treat the cancer while keeping your eye, or this sightly less insane amount to just get your eye removed. If you don't do either you die." What the fuck. At that point that isn't even a human society.

 

[MazeHaze]

All I know is, in the 6 months it took my fiancee to die of cancer, she racked up about 40k in medical debt. That's more than either of us make in a whole year. I guess we didn't have enough bootstraps.


Edit:and she had decent insurance.

 

[Fledz]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

Cancer treatment and general health are slightly different because of the inherent complications associated with cancer treatment, but sure I'll bite and simplify it.

In a universal healthcare system, appropriate medications and treatments are either subsidised or covered entirely. This allows the child to get immediate treatment, something that's vital for many if not most cancers. In the UK for example there's also a special system to use unapproved novel drugs in such cases too if a groundbreaking treatment is around the corner but not yet fully costed. We have a body called NICE that reviews all medicines after EMA approval in terms of not just efficacy and safety but also cost effectiveness. That's something that you seem to be missing. Cost effectiveness of medicines is being focused on more and more so as not to burden the taxpayer with medicines that don't bring enough of a benefit. As an industry, it's increasingly our role to demonstrate this to the healthcare professionals.

That child is then treated, they are happy, their family is happy, the community is happy. That child might then live a normal life, get a good education, get a good job, provide taxes and other benefits to the rest of the community. Rinse and repeat. Yes some will die but "someone may die so why waste the money" is a terrible argument and would make medicine pointless so let's not even entertain that.

If that childs family cannot afford treatment though, what happens? Does a delay in treatment cause irreversible life long issues or even death? What sort of a mental impact does that have on their family? Does it reduce productivity of others? Very likely! Could be short term, could be long term. Either way, the community is suffering because of it.

Or the child gets treatment but the family has massive debts in the long run. What if that ruins the childs ability to get a good education later because their parents can't afford it to due to the medical bills?

Are you starting to get it now?

 

[shiyrley]

All I know is, in the 6 months it took my fiancee to die of cancer, she racked up about 40k in medical debt. That's more than either of us make in a whole year. I guess we didn't have enough bootstraps.

I'm really sorry for your loss. And that's seriously fucked.

 

[Cocaloch]

If someone can and does change the definition of a term, doesn't that imply that the term itself is poorly defined?

This is rather off topic, because my issue here is a much more general one, but this is exactly the kind of thinking I'm disagreeing with. You're saying "change the definition of a term" as if there was one platonically true one that people are diverging from. That's not what happens with words because their meaning derives from usage. Again a word being poorly defined doesn't mean that there aren't multiple understandings, it means that a specific understanding of the word is vague.

Historically, this particular word, and really most words of philosophical importance, in English developed from a general vague sense to more developed rigorous competing definitions due to attempts to systematize our understanding of the word, at first jurisprudentially and later philosophically. Which is to say there are conflicting understandings specifically because the older ones were vague and poorly defined. Our definitions now derive from an attempt to make the word well defined.

Hey - I admit I was being rude. But I don't believe it was wrong to be rude. Because I don't see any reason not to be rude with someone who doesn't respect my life. I mean, if I lived in the USA, and I had the same cancer I had here, this person would be completely fine with the concept of me losing my eye or dying because of not having enough money to pay the surgeries or even detect the cancer in the first place.

The only reason I wasn't even more rude is that I don't intend to be banned.

Ugh, it makes me SICK to even think about the situation. "Hey, you can pay this insane amount to treat the cancer while keeping your eye, or this sightly less insane amount to just get your eye removed. If you don't do either you die." What the fuck. At that point that isn't even a human society.

I mean I hardly believe it's a pressing matter for you not to be rude in this case. Just that I believe we should try to avoid being rude as a general principle. That's also not just moral, I find this approach is also more effective in actually changing people's minds in general. But again it's not a huge issue. That poster isn't going to change his mind, and his arguments were quite poor so I doubt he'll have convinced anyone reading the thread.

 

[Cocaloch]

.

 

[The Albatross]

We are more wealthy than we have ever been. We can afford it.

I didn't mention wealth. Quid pro quo, if your society does not provide health care then it's not a modern society meeting the needs of its people.

Wealth is irrelevant. Poor societies can provide health care; Rich societies can fail at it.
Sidenote, I'm also specifically using society, not government. Government does not grant rights, it grants privileges.

Just in case I'm being too cute, I favor a universal health insurance/care system administered by the government as a privilege of the government, but I don't think that health care is a right.
"Universal" is a bit of a misnomer, though, the care would only apply to individuals under that government, so, arguably, "universal" would not mean that the British National Health Service would have to provide the health care for someone living in Germany, the Phillipines, or Florida, for instance. I just say "universal" because it's a buzz phrase and most people understand it. But if we're getting specific using lexicon like "rights" and priviledges, then "universal" is a misnomer. It's not "universal," it's typically national.

 

[shiyrley]

I think I'm gonna try to stop posting in this thread now. It has made me feel uncomfortable and angry.

 

[Foffy]

Example: My neighbor's kid gets cancer. I don't feel that everyone on the block should be compelled to pay for it, but I pony up some cash *AS CHARITY* to put towards the kid's treatment expenses. I am still evil because I feel that noone on the block should be compelled to pay for it?

You've said a lot of dumb things in this thread.

But this, sir, is one of the dumbest things I've seen all month.

Charity is always that sociopathic Libertarian answer to social ills, but let me challenge it with one simple remark.

In America, we believe those who lack are intrinsically at fault. If you're poor, per a certain GAF user (he hasn't posted here and has been banned for a while, it seems) you are complaining and failed "the easy game of life." We equate those at the bottom as literal parasites.

You think fucking charity is going to be offered to people we've normalized their situation of lack? That people are going to be running out to help the "parasites" and "welfare queens" and the "lazy people?" That's a blatantly wrong and downright dangerous assumption to be making, because if we have propagandized an entire culture to believe all problems are personally made and not systemically curated, this creates a view of fending for oneself and ignoring the other. After all, how many people walk past those who are homeless with signs, using every excuse in the fucking book to run with a narrative that they're all secretly scammers and that "it's not real?"

Your post screams like one of those "TAXATION IS THEFT" children I constantly see on the internet, and that entire argument isn't even worth the term "dogshit" which is where we'd have to grade it. The remarks of charity are almost always about the possibility of oneself offering aid, but really about passing the buck. It's a convenient excuse.

If charity worked, half of all GoFundMe traffic wouldn't have to have people literally fucking begging for help for medical costs.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

Sure, but generally one argues for what one believes. The implication here is that you never believed it was nonviable and just used that as a front for your actual argument, that you don't want to pay.

You're right that people shouldn't be rude, but its silly that you think its a "around here" thing. People are rude everywhere.

You're right --- it's not just around here, some people come out of the woodwork everywhere with rabid, overreaching hostility to disagreeing viewpoints.

Cancer treatment and general health are slightly different because of the inherent complications associated with cancer treatment, but sure I'll bite and simplify it.

In a universal healthcare system, appropriate medications and treatments are either subsidised or covered entirely. This allows the child to get immediate treatment, something that's vital for many if not most cancers. In the UK for example there's also a special system to use unapproved novel drugs in such cases too if a groundbreaking treatment is around the corner but not yet fully costed. We have a body called NICE that reviews all medicines after EMA approval in terms of not just efficacy and safety but also cost effectiveness. That's something that you seem to be missing. Cost effectiveness of medicines is being focused on more and more so as not to burden the taxpayer with medicines that don't bring enough of a benefit. As an industry, it's increasingly our role to demonstrate this to the healthcare professionals.

That child is then treated, they are happy, their family is happy, the community is happy. That child might then live a normal life, get a good education, get a good job, provide taxes and other benefits to the rest of the community. Rinse and repeat. Yes some will die but "someone may die so why waste the money" is a terrible argument and would make medicine pointless so let's not even entertain that.

If that childs family cannot afford treatment though, what happens? Does a delay in treatment cause irreversible life long issues or even death? What sort of a mental impact does that have on their family? Does it reduce productivity of others? Very likely! Could be short term, could be long term. Either way, the community is suffering because of it.

Or the child gets treatment but the family has massive debts in the long run. What if that ruins the childs ability to get a good education later because their parents can't afford it to due to the medical bills?

Are you starting to get it now?

I appreciate this thorough example ---- if it is indeed possible and sustainable for the US to have a healthcare model like this for the long-term, while maintaining quality of care overall and the momentum that medical research currently has, then I am all for this and would, of course, be willing to pay more taxes (within reason) to have this. (Am I not evil now?)

I just don't know how it would be viable without a massive, system-shattering restructuring of both the US health system and US expenditures in general, with extremely less military spending. While the military spending is, indeed, excessive, lowering it significantly would certainly lead to more instability around the world, as much as saying that pisses me off because I wish it wasn't true. Let's say the US decided to go all in on healthcare and slash its military budget down to the level of EU nations ---- what would all of the EU nations need to do to their own military spending to all of the sudden protect themselves from external aggressors/regional competitors? What would be one of the first things on the chopping block?

 

[Crispy75]

Taxes would go up. Insurance payments would disappear. Wages would (could) go up, because employers would no longer contribute to insurance.

Military spending would not have to change.

Youd be better off.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

LOL --- a system not being viable & the concept of not agreeing with compulsory payment into a potentially unviable system are two separate aspects of a topic. One can argue for or against either of them --- they are not linked.

But pat yourself on the back! You've won! You are right, and I am not only wrong, but evil!

Why does this sort of hyperbolic labeling tend to happen when someone goes against the grain around here? It's unnecessary and gets in the way of the actual discussion.

I don't think you're all wrong, I used to be vehemently for single payer healthcare, but have stepped back after looking at it in more detail. However, I'm not taking a strong position on this right now. I would like to ask you though, do you think education is a right? If so, then your proposal is to tread healthcare like education (i.e. preventive care is a right/basic education up to the HS level is a right) and not a full on right (i.e. BS/MS/PHD is not a right/surgeries/physical therapy/etc are not rights). Is that your stance?

 

[Fenderputty]

I just don't know how it would be viable without a massive, system-shattering restructuring of both the US health system and US expenditures in general, with extremely less military spending. While the military spending is, indeed, excessive, lowering it significantly would certainly lead to more instability around the world, as much as saying that pisses me off because I wish it wasn't true. Let's say the US decided to go all in on healthcare and slash its military budget down to the level of EU nations ---- what would all of the EU nations need to do to their own military spending to all of the sudden protect themselves from external aggressors/regional competitors? What would be one of the first things on the chopping block?

You'll not that even though I'm for UHC and funding coming from taxes, I'm not of the belief that it has to be a single payer system where the government also administers care. There are efficient multipayer systems that incorporate private insurance into their models and they achieve UHC. Too many liberals have their head in the sand when it comes to this. A system which incorporates private insurance into it's model will be easier for us to transition into and won't shatter any current system.

The idea that healthcare must come from military spending is fallacious. We already spend billions on medicare and medicaid. These funds would be re-purposed. Potential income tax increases should be offset by a one time transfer of your companies portion of your healthcare as income. Anything you paid to your employer now gets paid to the government. This would be my ideal. There's current discussion about a payroll tax, because it's more palatable to the general pop, but IMO is doesn't decouple labor from healthcare and that should be one of our goals.

 

[bounchfx]

I just don't really see the point of a country if we can't do the most basic thing as giving everyone proper and full health care

 

[DSN2K]

there should be universal national health service. If people want to pay for better quality they are free to do so also.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

For those of you who don't want to pay for someone elses treatment, what you need to understand is that you will eventually pay for it in some way that will end up costing you more. A sick populace costs more in the long run than a healthy populace. It also has an obvious impact on education and pretty much anything else tax revenue can be spent on.

It's mind boggling that pretty much every other Western country has figured this out yet but the US hasn't.

They also shouldn't pay for insurance. Because that lets poorer people "use" them too.

 

[MazeHaze]

They also shouldn't pay for insurance. Because that lets poorer people "use" them too.

Lol right? The "I don't wanna pay for other people's healthcare" argument blows my mind. Like, if you are paying for health insurance, you might want to sit down because I've got some news for you.

 

[Fledz]

I appreciate this thorough example ---- if it is indeed possible and sustainable for the US to have a healthcare model like this for the long-term, while maintaining quality of care overall and the momentum that medical research currently has, then I am all for this and would, of course, be willing to pay more taxes (within reason) to have this. (Am I not evil now?)

I just don't know how it would be viable without a massive, system-shattering restructuring of both the US health system and US expenditures in general, with extremely less military spending. While the military spending is, indeed, excessive, lowering it significantly would certainly lead to more instability around the world, as much as saying that pisses me off because I wish it wasn't true. Let's say the US decided to go all in on healthcare and slash its military budget down to the level of EU nations ---- what would all of the EU nations need to do to their own military spending to all of the sudden protect themselves from external aggressors/regional competitors? What would be one of the first things on the chopping block?

I personally never said you were evil nor did I think it. I think it's just a regular case of someone not sitting down with you to explain it thoroughly. Yes some of the onus is on you to research and understand it but there's no point fighting with you for the sake of it because that will get us nowhere.

Rational discourse is the only way to change peoples minds in the long run. If you're starting to see the other viewpoint then at least we've taken a step forward.

No one ever said it was going to be easy, but you need to start somewhere and invest in the future. That will probably cost a lot but ask yourself what the long term benefits will be.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

I don't think you're all wrong, I used to be vehemently for single payer healthcare, but have stepped back after looking at it in more detail. However, I'm not taking a strong position on this right now. I would like to ask you though, do you think education is a right? If so, then your proposal is to tread healthcare like education (i.e. preventive care is a right/basic education up to the HS level is a right) and not a full on right (i.e. BS/MS/PHD is not a right/surgeries/physical therapy/etc are not rights). Is that your stance?

I do believe that primary education is a service that the government should provide for its population, and yes, I'd equate preventative care to this level of service and specialty treatments with BS/MS/PhD level which the gov't should not be required to provide.

If a system could somehow be sustainable to provide MS/MS/PhD level education and all specialty medical treatments to its entire populace without sacrificing quality or timeliness and without accruing massive debt, then I would be all for this.

So, in general, I am for the system that everyone on here seems to be for.............I just am extremely skeptical of it actually being able to come to fruition in the US, despite being demonstrated in other countries --- why was there such massive backlash to Bernie Sanders' plan, even within his own party? Something like 32 trillion added to the national debt in a matter of 10 years. If there is something sustainable that doesn't yield this, then I am all for it.

You'll not that even though I'm for UHC and funding coming from taxes, I'm not of the belief that it has to be a single payer system where the government also administers care. There are efficient multipayer systems that incorporate private insurance into their models and they achieve UHC. Too many liberals have their head in the sand when it comes to this. A system which incorporates private insurance into it's model will be easier for us to transition into and won't shatter any current system.

The idea that healthcare must come from military spending is fallacious. We already spend billions on medicare and medicaid. These funds would be re-purposed. Potential income tax increases should be offset by a one time transfer of your companies portion of your healthcare as income. Anything you paid to your employer now gets paid to the government. This would be my ideal. There's current discussion about a payroll tax, because it's more palatable to the general pop, but IMO is doesn't decouple labor from healthcare and that should be one of our goals.

I would be onboard for such a system, if it can be done.

 

[MazeHaze]

Obviously SOMETHING needneeds to be done. My current gf doesn't even have health insurance. The plan available through her 40k a year job is fucking 800 dollars a month.

 

[Fledz]

why was there such massive backlash to Bernie Sanders' plan, even within his own party? Something like 32 trillion added to the national debt in a matter of 10 years. If there is something sustainable that doesn't yield this, then I am all for it.

Strong lobby groups. Healthcare is big money and a lot of people make big money from your current system.

It's also a reason why some want to privatise the NHS in the UK. It's always about money.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

This thread is bonkers

The only ones that are bonkers here are you and people who think like you.

You seem to think other countries have poorly trained physicians, which is blatantly false (and offensive).
You seem to think that without a fully private system, physicians won't have an incentive to do what they do, which is blatantly false (also offensive).
You seem to think that in other countries, physicians are treated like slaves of the state, which is blatantly false (and guess what, offensive).

But worse, you think that a kid dying of cancer should only rely on charity to live. And then you have the nerve to whine that people call you evil?

Evil doesn't usually come in glowing red eyes and malevolent cackling laughter. Coldly dismissing kids with cancers and telling those who failed to raise the $100k+ they need for treatment (which is what they need in the US, of course) that too bad, they don't get to live, is still really fucking evil.

100 people need a new kidney, 1 kidney is available. Whose unalienable right is it to get that kidney?
If you eat shit and don't exercise whose responsibility is it to treat that diabetes and failing heart?

No one said universal healthcare means unlimited physical and human resources for all. That's not how it works. Yes, there are waiting lists (in the US too, btw) and things like that because recipients for kidneys outnumber available kidneys. That said, dialysis machines are available for all those who need it, and yes, that's a right. In civilized countries, at least.

As for unhealthy habits, well -- some people have better health habits than others, but the moment you start policing that when distributing healthcare, you start miring things down in an impossible bureaucratic task. It's counter-productive and borderline offensive (what did my mother, who ate well, took daily walks and lived in moderation, do to deserve cancer? guess she wasn't athletic enough? maybe she ate cake once in a while?). So healthcare for all is the only thing that makes sense.

Why should anyone have the motivation to live healthily if they will just get bailed out by their neighbor when they need a triple bypass? Sure, some rational-thinking people will stay healthy to avoid hospital stays and live-threatening circumstances, but for those countless people out there that don't think that far ahead, there will be no motivation to actually take care of themselves. If anything happens to them, the state-run medical system has got their back, free of charge.

This is so fucking insane it's kind of hilarious.

First of all, do you really think that people in non-US developed countries just live unhealthily because hey, "free healthcare"?? "Sure I'll eat nothing but bacon every day, if things go wrong I'll just get a triple bypass"?? Like... holy shit, do you think people actually think like that because... wow. No one wants to undergo a fucking triple bypass even when it's free, only a crazy person would say that. No one likes to go to the hospital or the doctor's, period, and most people will do reasonable things to avoid that as much as possible.

Second, it's really fucking ironic that you'd say this when it's the fucking US of A that has the highest rate of obesity in the whole developed world. So not only do Americans have this "incentive" (by your logic) to take care of their bodies, since their healthcare isn't free, and yet... they are those who have the unhealthiest habits of them all.

You are so utterly disconnected from reality, it's absolutely mind-blowing.

Out of curiosity do we have infinite judges, infinite juries, and infinite public defenders?

Should legal counsel be stricken from the Constitution as a right? Or the right to a fair trial?

Infinite firefighters and policemen for everyone! /s

To quote Lewis Black: "Why should I pay for the fire department? My house isn't on fire! .... (AND NEVER WILL BE)"

 

[Mung]

Yes of course it bloody well is.

The fact that people argue that it isn't is depressing as fuck.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

I see this as a pedantic question more than anything. "Is health care a right?" and "Should the government fund health care through taxation" are two separate questions.

I'd say it's better to consider it an entitlement than a right. Something that's there for people who are truly in need. But there also needs to be some moral hazard so that people have an incentive to take care of themselves. Similar to welfare, you don't want a system where people are self destructive because they know the government will bail them out.

I leave the actual implementation to the experts, e.g. not the modern day Democrat or Republican parties.

 

[Business]

The state should provide quality healthcare and education for everyone. Maybe not a whole lot more than that but these two are a must.

 

[Fledz]

I'd say it's better to consider it an entitlement than a right. Something that's there for people who are truly in need. But there also needs to be some moral hazard so that people have an incentive to take care of themselves. Similar to welfare, you don't want a system where people are self destructive

This is done through education not healthcare. The best form of prevention in healthcare is a better education.

 

[Fenderputty]

I see this as a pedantic question more than anything. "Is health care a right?" and "Should the government fund health care through taxation" are two separate questions.

I'd say it's better to consider it an entitlement than a right. Something that's there for people who are truly in need. But there also needs to be some moral hazard so that people have an incentive to take care of themselves. Similar to welfare, you don't want a system where people are self destructive because they know the government will bail them out.

I leave the actual implementation to the experts, e.g. not the modern day Democrat or Republican parties.

Why are only those truly in need "entitled" to healthcare? How do you define truly in need? You're basically describing our current medicaid program. Which, I mean, if that alone was enough this topic wouldn't exist.

I believe your welfare anecdote is also off. For one I feel you overhyping the fraud in welfare, for another why don't you look to see what effects other systems in place are causing? I'm pretty sure every nation with a government UHC also has a happier, healthier and longer living populace.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...ankings-of-17-nations-us-is-dead-last/267045/

If your worry about incentivizing unhealthy lifestyles were to exist in reality, you would expect other systems to place lower than us in the above ranking.

 

[Herne]

I'm not sure how anyone can ask that question. I would be dead many times over if not for the (mostly) free healthcare provided for me by the State.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

This is done through education not healthcare. The best form of prevention in healthcare is a better education.

Why are only those truly in need "entitled" to healthcare? How do you define truly in need? You're basically describing our current medicaid program. Which, I mean, if that alone was enough this topic wouldn't exist.

I believe your welfare anecdote is also off. For one I feel you overhyping the fraud in welfare, for another why don't you look to see what effects other systems in place are causing? I'm pretty sure every nation with a government UHC also has a happier, healthier and longer living populace.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/...ankings-of-17-nations-us-is-dead-last/267045/

If your worry about incentivizing unhealthy lifestyles were to exist in reality, you would expect other systems to place lower than us in the above ranking.

Fledz' post above is the answer to your question, education. Healthcare benefits could be made conditional on lifestyle choices. As long as citizens are educated on healthy diet and exercise, then they can choose to bear the costs of any health problems that can be directly correlated to their choices.

An obvious example is a smoker getting COPD. I am in no way an expert on how to prove that smoking is the cause of COPD for a given individual. But if it were proven that it was caused by smoking and the person knew the risks, then no, I don't believe that person has a right to treatment funded by taxation. They should bear the cost of their decision, IMO.

Again, my opinion, I wouldn't consider that scenario to be objective in any way.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

The only ones that are bonkers here are you and people who think like you.
.....
You are so utterly disconnected from reality, it's absolutely mind-blowing.


Infinite firefighters and policemen for everyone! /s

To quote Lewis Black: "Why should I pay for the fire department? My house isn't on fire! .... (AND NEVER WILL BE)"

I hope you've read through the entire thread such that you've seen my development throughout it and how I've bended & warmed up to some ideas. The above examples that you attribute to me are ones that I hastily posted as attempts at analogies and weren't well thought through. If I had thought them through better, then I probably never would have posted them.

Having said that, I still believe parts of my original post that claimed it bonkers that people in this thread were talking about sky-is-the-limit healthcare being as easily renewable & easily supplied as basic food/water, comparing the work of highly trained physicians to that of building roads/bridges/cars/houses, and saying that any who disagree must be racist or elitist.

I still am not fully convinced of the sustainability of such a system that everyone wants, and says that the EU etc. have presently. I don't think that all healthcare beyond that of preventative care is as easy to distribute as water/food.

I don't think that physicians or their work should be compared to roads/infrastructure/car-building.

I don't think that everyone that disagrees with those in this thread are racist or elitist. Some may be. Others may just be misguided or ill-informed. Some may be just as informed as you and just truly doubt the viability of such a system in the US with its other economic issues. I fall within those last two --- this thread has helped me a little on the "misinformed" aspect. I'm still not thoroughly convinced but have come some way since the beginning of the discussion.

 

[Fenderputty]

Fledz' post above is the answer to your question, education. Healthcare benefits could be made conditional on lifestyle choices. As long as citizens are educated on healthy diet and exercise, then they can choose to bear the costs of any health problems that can be directly correlated to their choices.

An obvious example is a smoker getting COPD. I am in no way an expert on how to prove that smoking is the cause of COPD for a given individual. But if it were proven that it was caused by smoking and the person knew the risks, then no, I don't believe that person has a right to treatment funded by taxation. They should bear the cost of their decision, IMO.

Again, my opinion, I wouldn't consider that scenario to be objective in any way.

You're explaining your rationale at least. You're also literally advocating for death panels lol.

What if it's found that cell phone use causes cancer? What about those who've overeaten? How about those that live with a smoker? What about those who drink? Those who drive too risky? Those who engage in overly dangerous sports? Those who are prone to stress but are forced to deal with constant stress at work? Should my back pain not be taken care of because I didn't opt for a stand up desk when it was offered? Should my company pay since they didn't offer? You're creating an unnecessary line. In addition, things in society which put a burden on society are already taxed proportionality, or at least more so than those that don't. Cigarettes and booze are both taxed heavily as a result. So will marijuana use.

Part of those taxes should go towards healthcare. Problem solved. No unnecessary line and everyone is healthier.

 

[shiyrley]

I know I said I would stop posting but I just realised something hilarious

Because they haven't ---- people keep "pulling out of their asses" examples like how wonder of treatment they got as members of countries that have 2 million, 40 million, 60 million population sizes.

2 million

I think this guy believes the Canary Islands are a country and not part of Spain lmao. I mean, I don't see where else he could have gotten that 2M figure in this thread

If that was your research... yeah... no, I live in a country with a 46,56M population, not 2M

 

[boiled goose]

LOL --- a system not being viable & the concept of not agreeing with compulsory payment into a potentially unviable system are two separate aspects of a topic. One can argue for or against either of them --- they are not linked.

But pat yourself on the back! You've won! You are right, and I am not only wrong, but evil!

Why does this sort of hyperbolic labeling tend to happen when someone goes against the grain around here? It's unnecessary and gets in the way of the actual discussion.

And now playing victim starts! It was coming eventually.

Ps: you never addresssed that wealth and merit not correlated. If they aren't, you need a different argument for denying healthcare to poor people.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

And now playing victim starts! It was coming eventually.

Ps: you never addresssed that wealth and merit not correlated. If they aren't, you need a different argument for denying healthcare to poor people.

Keep reading down the page. The trouble with message boards........

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

I know I said I would stop posting but I just realised something hilarious


I think this guy believes the Canary Islands are a country and not part of Spain lmao. I mean, I don't see where else he could have gotten that 2M figure in this thread



If that was your research... yeah... no, I live in a country with a 46,56M population, not 2M

You're right, hahaha, silly me.

We can both leave the thread a little wiser. You with the knowledge that Canada only has 36 million people despite being similar geographic size-wise to the US, and me with knowing more about the Canary Islands.

Guess it will be up to the thread to judge which is more hilarious: you thinking that Canada has a similar population size as the US or me not knowing that the Canary Islands are tied to Spain.

 

[Fledz]

Fledz' post above is the answer to your question, education. Healthcare benefits could be made conditional on lifestyle choices. As long as citizens are educated on healthy diet and exercise, then they can choose to bear the costs of any health problems that can be directly correlated to their choices.

An obvious example is a smoker getting COPD. I am in no way an expert on how to prove that smoking is the cause of COPD for a given individual. But if it were proven that it was caused by smoking and the person knew the risks, then no, I don't believe that person has a right to treatment funded by taxation. They should bear the cost of their decision, IMO.

Again, my opinion, I wouldn't consider that scenario to be objective in any way.

Ooooh this isn't something you'd want really. Again, better education should drop the rate of smoking which would then drop the prevalence of COPD. A lot of people wouldn't take up smoking if they understood it more, or at least would quit sooner.

I used to sell COPD medications and the amount of people who actually know what COPD is, is quite small compared to lung cancer. Yet it's COPD that's far worse in terms of impact on lifestyle. An early death from lung cancer is sometimes a mercy compared to long term COPD.

 

[shiyrley]

You're right, hahaha, silly me.

We can both leave the thread a little wiser. You with the knowledge that Canada only has 36 million people despite being similar geographic size-wise to the US, and me with knowing more about the Canary Islands.

Guess it will be up to the thread to judge which is more hilarious: you thinking that Canada has a similar population size as the US or me not knowing that the Canary Islands are tied to Spain.

Considering the fact that the Canary Islands are part of Spain is something I said on the second line of my post, and the multiple times I spoke about "Spain" and not the "Canary Islands", I already know the answer. This is not about geography, it's about reading posts written in the English language, which should be easier for a native speaker like you.

 

[Fluffernutter Pancake]

Considering the fact that the Canary Islands are part of Spain is something I said on the second line of my post, and the multiple times I spoke about "Spain" and not the "Canary Islands", I already know the answer. This is not about geography, it's about reading posts written in the English language, which should be easier for a native speaker like you.

You really got me there --- I'm learning some wit from you too!