PDA

View Full Version : Is Healthcare a right? AMERICAN VOTE


maddogmj77
March 7th, 2017, 10:19 AM
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are said to be unalienable rights. But, what right do we have to 'life', if we don't have healthcare that won't put us in debt, hindering our pursuit of happiness; and if we can't afford it, our life.

The Healthcare plan suggested by Trump & other Republicans does not guarantee healthcare, but instead asks that it be paid for, and up to the competing commercial market to make billions off of what should be considered an "unalienable right" "...given to all human beings by their Creator, and which GOVERNMENTS ARE CREATED TO PROTECT." -The Declaration of Independence
Our government, instead of protecting this right, leaves it to the businesses to decide what happens. They are the only ones who will gain anything from this plan.
Other countries are already far ahead of us on the idea of Universal Healthcare. It isn't some unheard of idea, it's being done in other countries. Instead of creating taxes that will mainly effect the rich and big businesses, they want to completely reverse it, make the people have to pay big-time. It's the whole top-down "Regeanomics" that say, if you cut taxes on the wealthy, and let them do what they want, then maybe some of that money will "trickle down" and we can make barely live-able minimum wage, while they continue to make even more money off of the lower class.
Healthcare is a right, and businesses can't continue to make money off of this while people continue to die from poverty.

Please, if you live in America, take the time to vote on this.

Hermes
March 7th, 2017, 12:51 PM
In the UK we have the National Health Service. The politician Aneurin Bevan was very much behind that and he said: “Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.” He also said “No society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.”

I quote him because I don't think I can say it any better. Free market insurance is not the answer because before long those who most need help will not be able to afford their premiums whereas the most healthy will pay very little. The whole point is that we club together to support the least fortunate.

maddogmj77
March 7th, 2017, 01:26 PM
In the UK we have the National Health Service. The politician Aneurin Bevan was very much behind that and he said: “Illness is neither an indulgence for which people have to pay, nor an offence for which they should be penalised, but a misfortune the cost of which should be shared by the community.” He also said “No society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.”

I quote him because I don't think I can say it any better. Free market insurance is not the answer because before long those who most need help will not be able to afford their premiums whereas the most healthy will pay very little. The whole point is that we club together to support the least fortunate.

OH MY GOD!!! You mean actually supporting the poor? YOU COMMIE BASTARD!!!
Seriously though, people need to get over the whole socialist idea, it's not new. America already has socialist ideas: the military/defense, the police force, the fire dept., public libraries, public schools, all government funded infrastructure such as roads and highways. THE ENTIRE IDEA OF A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS A SOCIALIST IDEA. The president of America is payed for with our taxes in order to benefit all of society. THAT IS SOCIALISM. Without socialism, we'd have nothing. Pure capitalism is Anarchy. We're a socialist/capitalist nation, get over it.
Here's 75 ways that America is already socialist
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America

mattsmith48
March 7th, 2017, 07:12 PM
maddogmj77 you forgot their biggest socialist idea... trickle down economics which is literally wellfare for the rich. With their massive tax break and a bigger military budget then the next 7 countries combine, while thousands of people die every year due to lack of health insurance, they might be socialist, its on the wrong things.

bentheplayer
March 7th, 2017, 10:35 PM
Healthcare care can never be a complete right in the truest sense since that one can spend the entire country's GDP and still not be completely "healthy" considering that people might demand for preventive screening and stuff. Its all about finding a balance and a provision of a service insofar society can and is willing to afford.

In the UK there is rationing of healthcare that is done by NICE through evaluation of the cost effectiveness of treatment by the use of quality adjusted life years(QALY). If I am not wrong the general cut off used is around 30k GBP per QALY. In the Uk there is a fairly comprehensive range of healthcare that is largely free at point of delivery.

For the US, some might argue that there is "free healthcare" too as hospitals must accept all patients at the A&E regardless of their ability to pay. However, this means that the basic healthcare level in US is A&E treatment that they can be legally forced to pay and made bankrupt before the hospital "lets them off". Basically everyone can only get emergency treatment but not followup treatment.

There are loads of market failure in healthcare and looking at countries with the best healthcare outcomes I think it is safe to say that a government led service isn't exactly a terrible idea.

Pyromaniac27
March 7th, 2017, 10:44 PM
i would just like to say you should not be charged for not having health care, because how are you supposed to afford it when your trying your hardest and get fined 1000 dolars a month for not having it, it seems pretty controdictiary

maddogmj77
March 7th, 2017, 11:29 PM
maddogmj77 you forgot their biggest socialist idea... trickle down economics which is literally wellfare for the rich. With their massive tax break and a bigger military budget then the next 7 countries combine, while thousands of people die every year due to lack of health insurance, they might be socialist, its on the wrong things.

Trickle down economics is what Ronald Regean deemed "Regeanomics", and it is NOT socialist, it is a VERY capitalistic idea. Socialism would have universal healthcare with taxes heavily targeting the rich. Right now, the rich get massive tax breaks, with so many loopholes, out-sourcing jobs to 3rd world countries, while the working class is left to pick up the bill.

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 12:33 AM
i would just like to say you should not be charged for not having health care, because how are you supposed to afford it when your trying your hardest and get fined 1000 dolars a month for not having it, it seems pretty controdictiary

Huh? Its basically like a tax on tobacco. Its a tax on people who chooses to make bad decisions and end up forcing the state to foot the bill. In the US even people who can't afford healthcare are entitled to free ER healthcare which is paid for by the fed. If they buy insurance, then the insurance will foot that A&E bill and the fed doesn't need to pay. Its simply a means to correct economic externalities of the healthcare market.

maddogmj77
March 8th, 2017, 12:38 AM
Huh? Its basically like a tax on tobacco. Its a tax on people who chooses to make bad decisions and end up forcing the state to foot the bill. In the US even people who can't afford healthcare are entitled to free ER healthcare which is paid for by the fed. If they buy insurance, then the insurance will foot that A&E bill and the fed doesn't need to pay. Its simply a means to correct economic externalities of the healthcare market.

When you make a tax on tobacco, the people buying tobacco have money. They're already spending money on tobacco, they have the choice to stop buying tobacco if they wish. What you are suggesting is that people who do not have enough money, and do not HAVE a choice, are making a bad "decision", by not being able to afford healthcare, that is completely absurd.

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 12:43 AM
When you make a tax on tobacco, the people buying tobacco already have money. They're already spending money on tobacco, there is just an added tax. What you are suggesting is that people who do not have enough money, and do not HAVE a choice, are making a bad "decision", by not being able to afford healthcare, that is completely absurd.

There is some affordability clause in ACA. Those who meet the affordability clause exemption don't need to pay the "fine/tax". This is all about the fine print of the policy. Its the framers who need to account for such cases which they did. Those people will be covered via medicaid or some other fed program.

maddogmj77
March 8th, 2017, 12:56 AM
There is some affordability clause in ACA. Those who meet the affordability clause exemption don't need to pay the "fine/tax". This is all about the fine print of the policy. Its the framers who need to account for such cases which they did. Those people will be covered via medicaid or some other fed program.

I haven't read into the Affordable Care Act enough to know, but that seems like a pretty good idea. The problem is, Trump and other republicans want to completely repeal it.

I have another suggestion, why don't we just stop calling it "Obamacare", rename it completely. I think that's where most republicans or conservatives get tripped up. They hate Obama. Joking of course...not really

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 01:07 AM
I haven't read into the Affordable Care Act enough to know, but that seems like a pretty good idea. The problem is, Trump and other republicans want to completely repeal it.

I have another suggestion, why don't we just stop calling it "Obamacare", rename it completely. I think that's where most republicans or conservatives get tripped up. They hate Obama. Joking of course...not really

Have u seen Trumpcare? Its a joke. He actually said and I quote "who knew health care was so complicated". So far based on various modelling that I have seen for the proposed tax credit scheme, it actually makes the lower income ppl worse off.

Like all current politics in US there is a lot of deliberate misinformation going on so I am not surprised that many people don't understand ACA completely.

Healthcare is one of the few commodities that everyone needs at some point in their life but there is very little consensus on how to fund it. One major result of this surge of insurance price is cos of the insurance cap that effectively "forces" the younger people to cover the cost of healthcare for the older people.

Imo, I think that healthcare insurance should be a generational thing where people of each cohort/time period pay into a pool that will eventually be used for their care. Given an aging population, expecting the young to subsidize the old isn't going to be sustainable for long.

Btw Obamacare was called that by Republicans who wanted to make it a partisan issue. Obama administration originally called it Affordable Care Act.

maddogmj77
March 8th, 2017, 03:06 AM
Have u seen Trumpcare? Its a joke. He actually said and I quote "who knew health care was so complicated". So far based on various modelling that I have seen for the proposed tax credit scheme, it actually makes the lower income ppl worse off.

Like all current politics in US there is a lot of deliberate misinformation going on so I am not surprised that many people don't understand ACA completely.

Healthcare is one of the few commodities that everyone needs at some point in their life but there is very little consensus on how to fund it. One major result of this surge of insurance price is cos of the insurance cap that effectively "forces" the younger people to cover the cost of healthcare for the older people.

Imo, I think that healthcare insurance should be a generational thing where people of each cohort/time period pay into a pool that will eventually be used for their care. Given an aging population, expecting the young to subsidize the old isn't going to be sustainable for long.

Btw Obamacare was called that by Republicans who wanted to make it a partisan issue. Obama administration originally called it Affordable Care Act.

Yea, almost everything in this country ends up being a partisan issue, it's easy to gain support when parties blindly follow anything that has the republican or democratic "seal of approval" on it. It's sad honestly. People are no longer thinking for themselves. Everyone has identified themselves with their party, and anybody who's on the "opposing" party, are the most horrible people imaginable. I don't think it's gonna take much to get these half-assed "replacements" passed through congress with the republican-majority. Just another way that party-politics ruin everything.

It's nice that he finally admitted his ignorance though. Obama knew that healthcare was complicated, he said it over and over again. The solution to this is not to throw everything we have in the trash and start again. But to continue fixing and adjusting our current legislation with help from BOTH parties. This is and never was a party issue. This a human issue.

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 03:45 AM
It's nice that he finally admitted his ignorance though. Obama knew that healthcare was complicated, he said it over and over again. The solution to this is not to throw everything we have in the trash and start again. But to continue fixing and adjusting our current legislation with help from BOTH parties. This is and never was a party issue. This a human issue.

Lol. I don't think its an admission of ignorance but rather an attempt to shirk off his responsibility on healthcare. As with all Trump has done, he always pushes the blame away from himself like his most recent accusation of Obama wire tapping him.

This partisan based thinking is going to kill America sooner or later.

Healthcare is one of the most complicated area in domestic public policy and across varies countries is done through meaningful cooperation with input from the govt(budget restrains), medical professionals (provision of service), hospital administrators (facilities management) and economist/biz ppl (optimization of costs and efficiency savings). This is kinda oversimplified but that is the general idea of the approach. While healthcare is intrinsically an emotively charged issue, people in the US are getting emotional on all the wrong areas.

Tbh I just don't see how politicians in the US are working for the people. When ever someone tries to work for the people they get labelled a socialist or a traitor to America. I wonder who the real traitors are...

Hermes
March 8th, 2017, 04:56 AM
Imo, I think that healthcare insurance should be a generational thing where people of each cohort/time period pay into a pool that will eventually be used for their care. Given an aging population, expecting the young to subsidize the old isn't going to be sustainable for long.

The UK system solves that in a slighly different way. It is funded from general tax which means that, excepting the loopholes the rich exploit, people pay according to their means. That means if younger people are not as well off because they are at an earlier stage of their career then they contribute less.

Of course, without being investment-backed it does mean those in work, who are generally healthy, are supporting those who have retired, who are generally less healthy. That in itself should not be a problem because over a lifetime most people will have made adequate contributions to cover their care in old age.

Where that can go wrong is when the number of old people goes up in comparison to those in work. This has been happenning both because people now spend more years in retirement than ever before, and because the baby boom generation are now retired. That doesn't just present a problem for healthcare but for pension provision too (in the UK there is also a state pension).

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 05:19 AM
Hermes
There are a lot of problems in the UK now with this generational divide of older people benefiting off the younger ppl. In theory people are supposed to have made adequate contributions but this isn't the case. As the NHS is funded from general taxation, contributions are not ring fenced to healthcare and with rising cost of elderly care homes, cancer drugs etc, this isn't sustainable in the long run. The UK budget is done broadly on a yearly basis and not with a long term cost of healthcare in mind. The old people might have "paid" for their healthcare when they were younger but that money wasn't set aside for their use now. This money is collected from people who are working currently.

Insurance and the UK system of healthcare isn't really that different except that the rich probably end up paying more for healthcare due to progressive tax rates in the Uk and a preference for private care. One is administered by private companies while the other by the state or statutory boards. The concept of bench-marking and ring-fencing by cohort is still a relatively new actuarial idea that is being introduced only in Singapore as far as I know.

Tbh I am quite pissed with the UK govt triple lock pension policy as this is at the expense of the young generation who are struggling to buy a home and raise a family.

Bull
March 8th, 2017, 08:50 AM
The Affordable Care Act was a giant step forward in the provision of health care for all. However, with any new approach there are areas needing tweaking. That does not mean it should be thrown out the window. My political party needs to wake up and smell the roses. To every elected official: Your first and upmost responsibility is to the people in your district. Take care of their needs above all else. Health care, medication, hospitalization are all out of control. Those who would make huge profit from people's illness are to be shamed. Health care must become affordable for everyone. And for those who have not the means to purchase insurance from the for profit (huge profit) insurance companies we the people must step up and see to it that their health needs are met. No one, not one single person, should die because they are denied proper attention to their health needs. I wish every elected official would walk for an extended period of time in the shoes of their least advantaged constituents. God bless the people of America!

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 09:01 AM
To every elected official: Your first and upmost responsibility is to the people in your district. Take care of their needs above all else.

Finally. I nearly thought that everyone has forgotten about the duties of elected officials. They are responsible for everyone, not just those who elected them. That said I think a number of republican elected people have forgotten this and brush off people who question them as paid protesters.


The "You work for us" chant is a rather interesting one at various town hall events.

Bull
March 8th, 2017, 09:10 AM
Finally. I nearly thought that everyone has forgotten about the duties of elected officials. They are responsible for everyone, not just those who elected them. That said I think a number of republican elected people have forgotten this and brush off people who question them as paid protesters.


The "You work for us" chant is a rather interesting one at various town hall events.

IMO too many, far too many, elected officials feel their first responsibility is to the special interests who financed their campaign. That means they were bought. SAD

mattsmith48
March 8th, 2017, 09:26 AM
Trickle down economics is what Ronald Regean deemed "Regeanomics", and it is NOT socialist, it is a VERY capitalistic idea. Socialism would have universal healthcare with taxes heavily targeting the rich. Right now, the rich get massive tax breaks, with so many loopholes, out-sourcing jobs to 3rd world countries, while the working class is left to pick up the bill.

Yes it is socialism for the rich, those tax break gives them back free money with the government not asking them anything in return.

Also if you raise the tax on the rich how will they afford to not pay their employees?

When you make a tax on tobacco, the people buying tobacco have money. They're already spending money on tobacco, they have the choice to stop buying tobacco if they wish.

Its an addiction, you can't just stop overnight.


I have another suggestion, why don't we just stop calling it "Obamacare", rename it completely. I think that's where most republicans or conservatives get tripped up. They hate Obama. Joking of course...not really

I agree that Obamacare should be call by its real name the Affordable Care Act. And don't start calling their alternative Trumpcare, call what its really is... Fuck You!

Have u seen Trumpcare? Its a joke. He actually said and I quote "who knew health care was so complicated".

Is it possible that President Pussy Grabber is a moron?

Like all current politics in US there is a lot of deliberate misinformation going on so I am not surprised that many people don't understand ACA completely.

Healthcare is one of the few commodities that everyone needs at some point in their life but there is very little consensus on how to fund it. One major result of this surge of insurance price is cos of the insurance cap that effectively "forces" the younger people to cover the cost of healthcare for the older people.

Imo, I think that healthcare insurance should be a generational thing where people of each cohort/time period pay into a pool that will eventually be used for their care. Given an aging population, expecting the young to subsidize the old isn't going to be sustainable for long.

The real problem with your healthcare system is that your politicians on both sides are looking for complicated solutions when there is a simple solution available that is working everywhere its been implemented.

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 09:33 AM
Is it possible that President Pussy Grabber is a moron?

The real problem with your healthcare system is that your politicians on both sides are looking for complicated solutions when there is a simple solution available that is working everywhere its been implemented.

Trump isn't a complete moron and knows marketing very well. He is a talker not a doer.

What is this supposedly simple solution to healthcare that is working everywhere? Lol.

mattsmith48
March 8th, 2017, 09:39 AM
Trump isn't a complete moron and knows marketing very well. He is a talker not a doer.

I wouldn't say he knows marketing very well, but fine I'll give him that.

What is this supposedly simple solution to healthcare that is working everywhere? Lol.

Single payer.

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 10:01 AM
Single payer.

This is overly simplified. From memory, Canada and Taiwan is the only 2 country with a single payer scheme. All other countries with leading health outcomes have hybrid systems of single payer and private insurance. Considering the usual failings of the US government I don't think they have the know how anyway. In any case single payer is merely a component of the wider problem and to think that all problems be solved with single payer scheme is ludicrous.

Bull
March 8th, 2017, 10:03 AM
Is it possible that President Pussy Grabber is a moron?

.

Absolutely! SAD

mattsmith48
March 8th, 2017, 10:36 AM
This is overly simplified. From memory, Canada and Taiwan is the only 2 country with a single payer scheme. All other countries with leading health outcomes have hybrid systems of single payer and private insurance. Considering the usual failings of the US government I don't think they have the know how anyway. In any case single payer is merely a component of the wider problem and to think that all problems be solved with single payer scheme is ludicrous.

True that most country with single payer actually use more of a hybrid system which is better than letting your population die or go bankrupt on medical bills. The fact is single payer does work, it solves a lot of problems too, yes it doesn't solve all of them, but its the best and easiest solution. People don't have to worry about not being able to pay for medical treatment or getting bankrupt, they don't have to wait until the last minute to get something check out, they don't have extra money they don't have to spend on health insurance. The government having to pay for the healthcare of everyone, also serve as a deterrent to do shit that could potentially be harmfull to the population like pouring lead into the water supply, or letting coal companies dump shit into rivers. We are talking about the richest country on earth and even if they are incredibly stupid they can afford it and all they have to do is steal the idea from someone else.

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 10:40 AM
True that most country with single payer actually use more of a hybrid system which is better than letting your population die or go bankrupt on medical bills. The fact is single payer does work, it solves a lot of problems too, yes it doesn't solve all of them, but its the best and easiest solution. People don't have to worry about not being able to pay for medical treatment or getting bankrupt, they don't have to wait until the last minute to get something check out, they don't have extra money they don't have to spend on health insurance. The government having to pay for the healthcare of everyone, also serve as a deterrent to do shit that could potentially be harmfull to the population like pouring lead into the water supply, or letting coal companies dump shit into rivers.

Do u realise that under single payer system the govt takes over or "nationalises" the role of insurance company? This would almost inadvertently mean higher taxes which .... We prob shld know what will happen in the case of US. The conservatives will scream murder.

mattsmith48
March 8th, 2017, 10:44 AM
Do u realise that under single payer system the govt takes over or "nationalises" the role of insurance company? This would almost inadvertently mean higher taxes which .... We prob shld know what will happen in the case of US.

Rich and business are gonna start paying taxes again and you are going to eliminate loopholes that were purposely passed

bentheplayer
March 8th, 2017, 10:50 AM
Rich and business are gonna start paying taxes again and you are going to eliminate loopholes that were purposely passed

Ur probably barking up the wrong tree here. Tax loopholes are not related to healthcare but on the IRS tax code. As for insurance companies, most of their operating and profit margins are pretty low at around 10% but of cos the main beneoft of single payer is a standard set of benefits across the board. Private insurance usually have differing benefits which makes it hard to choose a right policy.

mattsmith48
March 8th, 2017, 11:29 AM
Ur probably barking up the wrong tree here. Tax loopholes are not related to healthcare but on the IRS tax code. As for insurance companies, most of their operating and profit margins are pretty low at around 10% but of cos the main beneoft of single payer is a standard set of benefits across the board. Private insurance usually have differing benefits which makes it hard to choose a right policy.

You're the one who brought up having to raise taxes to pay for single payer. Insurance companies making a profit that alone is a problem, some things shouldn't be for profit healthcare is one.

maddogmj77
March 8th, 2017, 12:41 PM
Yes it is socialism for the rich, those tax break gives them back free money with the government not asking them anything in return.

Also if you raise the tax on the rich how will they afford to not pay their employees?



Its an addiction, you can't just stop overnight.



I agree that Obamacare should be call by its real name the Affordable Care Act. And don't start calling their alternative Trumpcare, call what its really is... Fuck You!



Is it possible that President Pussy Grabber is a moron?



The real problem with your healthcare system is that your politicians on both sides are looking for complicated solutions when there is a simple solution available that is working everywhere its been implemented.

No, you don't understand, Trickle-down economics cuts taxes for the rich, the whole idea of taxes are a socialist idea, you are paying money to benefit the greater of society.

Dmaxd123
March 8th, 2017, 01:45 PM
the ACA needs to become an option not a fine if you don't have it

with the ACA insurance needs to be based upon your risks: the healthier lifestyle you lead the less risk = better rates, but since the companies have been forced to insure everyone for a set fee then those that are healthy can't get a discount for doing the right things so t he healthier you are you actually end up getting a penalty in paying more than you should

Bull
March 8th, 2017, 03:16 PM
Ok, you are a young healthy individual with no insurance. You get sick and go to an ER for treatment, but you can't afford the treatment. So no money, no insurance: no treatment? The tax payers end up paying for your personal neglect. Here's the option: buy insurance or pay a fine. Now the tax payer doesn't have to pick up your tab.

bentheplayer
March 9th, 2017, 05:39 AM
You're the one who brought up having to raise taxes to pay for single payer. Insurance companies making a profit that alone is a problem, some things shouldn't be for profit healthcare is one.

Now I am very tired of this downright baseless argument of insurance companies making a huge profit. Please go read up and get acquainted with the relevant stats for USA. In the US, health insurance companies isn't profitable at all, with an anemic 3 percent return on revenue. It is probably one of the least profitable industries in the healthcare food chain. The main problem in the US is the supply side with pharma and med device companies raking in profit margins of approx 15 to 30% and to add further insult, most of their R&D usually receive some kind of federal funding to various degrees. The figures I am quoting are ballpark past figures but the current figures shouldn't be too far off.

In the US much of economic power lies with the provider so the focus should be on the delivery side of it. One of the major differences in Europe is that the government sets prices for health-care services and products or exert some kind of control over those prices.

Mediaid/medicare are all single payer systems for specific populations the destitute and elderly. However this still leads to pretty crappy scenario as private insurance end up using Medicare rates as a baseline and then add a percentage of approx 30% on top. This only helps to promote inflated fees and encourage many places to refuse mediaid/care people. I seem to recall coming across anecdotal accounts of people being denied admission and asked to go to the ER instead. Apparently some have even died due to being unable to find a clinic that accepts these fed programs. Perhaps those in the US could share failings of such programs.

The true culprit is actually the pharma companies, device manufacturers and facility providers.

Voice_Of_Unreason
March 9th, 2017, 11:35 AM
You're the one who brought up having to raise taxes to pay for single payer. Insurance companies making a profit that alone is a problem, some things shouldn't be for profit healthcare is one.

Wow, so I should just pay for people's medical expenses without expecting anything in return? Now why would I do that?

I suggest you look up the already existing low-profit margins of health insurance, and possibly look into taking an economics class.

maddogmj77
March 9th, 2017, 11:44 AM
Wow, so I should just pay for people's medical expenses without expecting anything in return? Now why would I do that?

I suggest you look up the already existing low-profit margins of health insurance, and possibly look into taking an economics class.

Because you're a decent human being who cares? Just like everybody in the UK, people pay taxes so that everyone can have healthcare, it's called being a civilized society that cares for one another.

Also, all these other countries have already done it: https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

mattsmith48
March 9th, 2017, 12:04 PM
Now I am very tired of this downright baseless argument of insurance companies making a huge profit. Please go read up and get acquainted with the relevant stats for USA. In the US, health insurance companies isn't profitable at all, with an anemic 3 percent return on revenue. It is probably one of the least profitable industries in the healthcare food chain. The main problem in the US is the supply side with pharma and med device companies raking in profit margins of approx 15 to 30% and to add further insult, most of their R&D usually receive some kind of federal funding to various degrees. The figures I am quoting are ballpark past figures but the current figures shouldn't be too far off.

In the US much of economic power lies with the provider so the focus should be on the delivery side of it. One of the major differences in Europe is that the government sets prices for health-care services and products or exert some kind of control over those prices.

Your said insurance make a small profit, and I said them making any kind of profit is wrong. No one said they were making a lot of money. Pharma companies make big profits which is also wrong and shouldn't happen, but they do make profits because they can due to a lack of regulation and those companies pay your politicians to not do anything about it.

Mediaid/medicare are all single payer systems for specific populations the destitute and elderly. However this still leads to pretty crappy scenario as private insurance end up using Medicare rates as a baseline and then add a percentage of approx 30% on top. This only helps to promote inflated fees and encourage many places to refuse mediaid/care people. I seem to recall coming across anecdotal accounts of people being denied admission and asked to go to the ER instead. Apparently some have even died due to being unable to find a clinic that accepts these fed programs. Perhaps those in the US could share failings of such programs.


If everyone is covered under a single payer system this kind of shit wouldnt happen.

Wow, so I should just pay for people's medical expenses without expecting anything in return? Now why would I do that?


Actually you would receive something in return, when you get sick someone else is paying for you.

bentheplayer
March 9th, 2017, 06:26 PM
Your said insurance make a small profit, and I said them making any kind of profit is wrong. No one said they were making a lot of money. Pharma companies make big profits which is also wrong and shouldn't happen, but they do make profits because they can due to a lack of regulation and those companies pay your politicians to not do anything about it.

If everyone is covered under a single payer system this kind of shit wouldn't happen.

Why should insurance companies not be allowed even a small profit when they r providing a service? One could even pass of the profit as the cost of inefficiencies if it was administered by the state. It makes more sense to fix the supply side of healthcare first. In Switzerland everyone get health insurance that is provided for by private insurers subsidised by the state if necessary. The premise of single payer isn't sufficient.

Porpoise101
March 9th, 2017, 10:12 PM
I have to agree with the above poster; subsidized private insurance is the way to go. It allows more choice, allows for innovation in the market, and also provides good coverage when done correctly. The only issue is that of cost.

mattsmith48 Why is it bad that pharma companies make profits? You do know that the development of drugs requires billions of dollars and years to develop, right? No one is going to take risks to develop new medications if they cannot hope to gain much out of it. Sure, you can say that they make too much because of subsidies and the lack of bulk purchases, but even still they need to be able to grow and innovate.

Another reform I propose is to make healthcare costs transparent. Hospitals should be mandated to show their prices so consumers can actually make better decisions, which should bring everything closer to the socially optimal level according to Micro 101. The idea is that people will choose the price and care that they can easily see. I understand that the way treatments are priced can be very individualized, but they should maybe make a per hour estimate at least.

mattsmith48
March 9th, 2017, 10:38 PM
Why should insurance companies not be allowed even a small profit when they r providing a service? One could even pass of the profit as the cost of inefficiencies if it was administered by the state. It makes more sense to fix the supply side of healthcare first. In Switzerland everyone get health insurance that is provided for by private insurers subsidised by the state if necessary. The premise of single payer isn't sufficient.

I have to agree with the above poster; subsidized private insurance is the way to go. It allows more choice, allows for innovation in the market, and also provides good coverage when done correctly. The only issue is that of cost.

mattsmith48 Why is it bad that pharma companies make profits? You do know that the development of drugs requires billions of dollars and years to develop, right? No one is going to take risks to develop new medications if they cannot hope to gain much out of it. Sure, you can say that they make too much because of subsidies and the lack of bulk purchases, but even still they need to be able to grow and innovate.

When the pharma companies have to make a profit it is in their best interest to keep people sick. For insurance companies having to make a profit result into those companies having to give high sometime unaffordable cost to people with higher risk to get sick, or even if they are allowed to just refuse to give those people insurance.

Another reform I propose is to make healthcare costs transparent. Hospitals should be mandated to show their prices so consumers can actually make better decisions, which should bring everything closer to the socially optimal level according to Micro 101. The idea is that people will choose the price and care that they can easily see. I understand that the way treatments are priced can be very individualized, but they should maybe make a per hour estimate at least.

When it comes to chosing a treatment the choice should be what as a better chance to work not what can you afford.

bentheplayer
March 10th, 2017, 12:50 AM
When the pharma companies have to make a profit it is in their best interest to keep people sick. For insurance companies having to make a profit result into those companies having to give high sometime unaffordable cost to people with higher risk to get sick, or even if they are allowed to just refuse to give those people insurance.


When it comes to chosing a treatment the choice should be what as a better chance to work not what can you afford.

Here your argument is driven more by emotion than facts. Looking ta various healthcare ranking, Canada or single payer system isn't doing as well as you seem to be suggesting. According to the Comonwealth Fund 2014 report, It was ranked second last among 11 countries with US taking the last place. There is a role for capitalism in the healthcare but it needs to be at the right place. Considering that healthcare is pretty much either a monopoly or oligopolies, some form of regulation is needed from the supply side. At a level of a mere few percent profit, the cost burden isn't too high. Perhaps if you feel that such a profit margin is detestable how about stop using the supermarkets or grocery shops? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

Even in all Universal Healthcare Coverage schemes there will always be rationing either based on time or services provided. Beyond a certain cost point even if the treatment is more effective, it still won't be provided.


Another reform I propose is to make healthcare costs transparent. Hospitals should be mandated to show their prices so consumers can actually make better decisions, which should bring everything closer to the socially optimal level according to Micro 101. The idea is that people will choose the price and care that they can easily see. I understand that the way treatments are priced can be very individualized, but they should maybe make a per hour estimate at least.

This idea is nothing new really but may not be very practical as hospitals can't predict the various consumables that a patient will use and forcing them to provide a fixed price might end up with patients paying an inflated price. A more effective means could be to have the government fix the price of certain services or have a national/region procurement service. These techniques are of course by no means perfect but seem to be working somewhat for certain countries.

Uniquemind
March 10th, 2017, 12:54 PM
There is truth that the American agricultural-processed food addiction both in Farm Bill Law, corporate food companies, grocery stores, and our cultural-psychological addiction to what we expect as "normal restaurant size portions for the price paid" and our addiction to white sugars and flours for breads ALL contribute to why so many people are sick.


Such a sick populace is going to have healthcare issues.

But it's not just personal diet choice, it's the fact so many people in places like Chicago have gun shot wounds that cause spikes in costs to treat them in both doctor time and resources. (so that's crime related), does work culture which demands 8 hour shifts with commute leave time for poorer and lower middle class workers to exercise regularly for 30-45min daily, and get the psychological recommended 7-8 hours of sleep?

No? Okay well that's a cause for why elderly or those genetically predisposition end trigger mental health issues in middle-age or elderly age. That raises costs on whomever is the younger generation at the time.

Our culture must change and that's what this is really about on a broad scale.

Voice_Of_Unreason
March 10th, 2017, 01:09 PM
Actually you would receive something in return, when you get sick someone else is paying for you.
So, you are saying that I should pay for someone else's welfare without getting anything in return, thus resulting in me going into poverty, but getting free-welfare myself is going to make it worth it?

Lenin and Stalin would be very proud of you, young one. You are making everyone equal, equally poor that is.

maddogmj77
March 10th, 2017, 07:03 PM
So, you are saying that I should pay for someone else's welfare without getting anything in return, thus resulting in me going into poverty, but getting free-welfare myself is going to make it worth it?

Lenin and Stalin would be very proud of you, young one. You are making everyone equal, equally poor that is.

No, nobody should be going into poverty from paying taxes. What we need to be doing is cracking down on the rich, closing tax-loopholes, and making sure that they pay their fair share. That way, we can start alleviating taxes on low-middle income families.

Lenin & Stalin were dictators, and we're not talking about spreading wealth or communism, we're talking about universal healthcare.

Hermes
March 10th, 2017, 07:35 PM
[QUOTE=bentheplayer;3495123]http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

That figures in the league table in that report are a pretty damning indictment of the USA's healthcare system - spending the most money per capital to achieve the worst performance.

So you believe those supplying services are too expensive. Certainly in UK we have had private firms keen to take on some NHS services only to back out later when they found it impossible to make any profit.

So the cost may not be due to the insurance companies being greedy but that doesn't mean there aren't also part of the problem. In the UK car accident repair places are well known for asking "is it an insurance job" before giving a quotation for work, clearly because they believe the insurance companies can be fleeced, and those insurance companies then pass the cost on your their policy holders, whereas if the customer is stood there asking for a quote for himself, and intending to pay the bill himself, they know they need to be competitive.

It seems to me private companies only ever provide value for money when there is effective competition and there is only effective compettion when the market concerned is not a natural monopoly and where there is a little bit of over capacity. If these conditions are not met companies grow fat on inflated prices.

There is a further issue that in markets for most products even if such things as patents, copyright etc. mean a company has a monopoly on the supply of a particular product, if they set the price too high people simply choose to do without the produce rather than pay that. That's hardly going to happen with healthcare.

I think it is time to relaise that is is one area in which a market doesn't work and adopt a system such as the one we have in the UK which came first in the paper linked above for performance and had very reasonable cost.

Voice_Of_Unreason
March 10th, 2017, 08:34 PM
No, nobody should be going into poverty from paying taxes. What we need to be doing is cracking down on the rich, closing tax-loopholes, and making sure that they pay their fair share. That way, we can start alleviating taxes on low-middle income families.
Well, what would happen to those who sell health-insurance if they were prohibited from any profit? Poverty of course. So why would people sell health-insurance if there is nothing to gain from it?
Lenin & Stalin were dictators, and we're not talking about spreading wealth or communism, we're talking about universal healthcare.You should just hear the hypocrisy in your statement. Universal healthcare is all about spreading wealth among people, which leads to socialism, which then leads to communism. The term "socialized medicine" is even used to describe universal healthcare. Lenin and other communist leaders advocated for the same thing liberals are advocating for today. Free healthcare, government welfare, redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, economic equality, "fair share" taxation, authoritarianism, etc. Now you tell me that you aren't advocating a socialist/communist agenda.

mattsmith48
March 10th, 2017, 09:19 PM
Here your argument is driven more by emotion than facts. Looking ta various healthcare ranking, Canada or single payer system isn't doing as well as you seem to be suggesting. According to the Comonwealth Fund 2014 report, It was ranked second last among 11 countries with US taking the last place. There is a role for capitalism in the healthcare but it needs to be at the right place. Considering that healthcare is pretty much either a monopoly or oligopolies, some form of regulation is needed from the supply side. At a level of a mere few percent profit, the cost burden isn't too high. Perhaps if you feel that such a profit margin is detestable how about stop using the supermarkets or grocery shops? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund-report/2014/jun/1755_davis_mirror_mirror_2014.pdf

Buying food is a little less of a life and death situation, then getting medication or treatment or going to the doctor, but sure you could make an argument to prohibit grocery stores from making a profit.

So, you are saying that I should pay for someone else's welfare without getting anything in return, thus resulting in me going into poverty, but getting free-welfare myself is going to make it worth it?

You do relize that you are not paying directly for other people right?

Well, what would happen to those who sell health-insurance if they were prohibited from any profit? Poverty of course. So why would people sell health-insurance if there is nothing to gain from it?


If the health insurance is provided by the government no one as to sell it. The people curently selling health insurance don't have to go into poverty they can just start selling insurance for something else like car insurance.

maddogmj77
March 10th, 2017, 09:26 PM
You should just hear the hypocrisy in your statement. Universal healthcare is all about spreading wealth among people, which leads to socialism, which then leads to communism. The term "socialized medicine" is even used to describe universal healthcare. Lenin and other communist leaders advocated for the same thing liberals are advocating for today. Free healthcare, government welfare, redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, economic equality, "fair share" taxation, authoritarianism, etc. Now you tell me that you aren't advocating a socialist/communist agenda.

Universal healthcare has nothing to do with spreading wealth among people, nobody should receive any money from it. This is about making sure our government, use our taxes, for our own benefit; ensuring us access to good, free healthcare. I wasn't talking about government welfare, redistribution of wealth, economic equality, or authoritarianism. And I'm certainly not advocating a communist agenda.

America ranks worst for efficiency in health-care, we need some serious changes. I'm don't know exactly how, but other countries are doing a much better job than us.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/u-s-health-care-system-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-efficient

Porpoise101
March 10th, 2017, 10:30 PM
So, you are saying that I should pay for someone else's welfare without getting anything in return, thus resulting in me going into poverty, but getting free-welfare myself is going to make it worth it? Look at it from an economic perspective. The ideal is to provide healthcare to everyone at minimal cost. One way to do that is by a market with government intervention, another is by the government directly. The debate is truly about which is most efficient and will lead to the best economic outcomes for individuals and society as a whole, not the morality of taxes.

Will this harm healthy youngsters? It depends. ACA for example allows young adults to stay on the parents' insurance for example. So if mom has insurance you're safe for a while. In some countries with universal healthcare, there's a mandatory fee. It can be agreed upon that you will take out a lot of the money you put in as you age in those types of systems though.
Lenin and Stalin would be very proud of you, young one. You are making everyone equal, equally poor that is. I'm just going to say that Lenin wasn't that bad. He wasn't like Stalin, that's for sure. He may have been a dictator, but Lenin drastically improved the lives of millions of people (unless you were religious or a noble unfortunately). He turned a backwards Eastern European nation of illiterate serfs into a global power. That's commendable at least.

bentheplayer
March 10th, 2017, 11:39 PM
So you believe those supplying services are too expensive. Certainly in UK we have had private firms keen to take on some NHS services only to back out later when they found it impossible to make any profit.

I am only saying that the supply of healthcare in the US is too costly. Its ridiculous that the same item(drug/consumable/device/procedure) cost significantly more than what the rest of the world pays. The Uk is pretty efficient so it would be hard to make a profit from it. Also, the NHS is largely supported by goodwill from staff. There is no such thing as goodwill in a private setup.

So the cost may not be due to the insurance companies being greedy but that doesn't mean there aren't also part of the problem. In the UK car accident repair places are well known for asking "is it an insurance job" before giving a quotation for work, clearly because they believe the insurance companies can be fleeced, and those insurance companies then pass the cost on your their policy holders, whereas if the customer is stood there asking for a quote for himself, and intending to pay the bill himself, they know they need to be competitive.

I am not a fan of insurance in the US but it is probably the best compromise in the US since they hate govt involvement. The first step is to sort out demand side an then supply but they never to be able to get past either the demand or supply side. In some parts of the US, cash payers are billed less than what the insurance is billed for.

It seems to me private companies only ever provide value for money when there is effective competition and there is only effective compettion when the market concerned is not a natural monopoly and where there is a little bit of over capacity. If these conditions are not met companies grow fat on inflated prices.

There is a further issue that in markets for most products even if such things as patents, copyright etc. mean a company has a monopoly on the supply of a particular product, if they set the price too high people simply choose to do without the produce rather than pay that. That's hardly going to happen with healthcare.

The problem is that pvt insurance companies are usually price takers and are unable to drive prices down. Given that the supply side is protected by patents and stuff and that insurers are obliged to pay for treatment, insurers have no choice but to pay what is being demanded.

In the US Martin Shkreli raised the price of life-saving HIV-related drugs from $13.50 to $750. There is very little oversight in this aspect and he even justified the hike by claiming that insurance companies will pay it.

I think it is time to relaise that is is one area in which a market doesn't work and adopt a system such as the one we have in the UK which came first in the paper linked above for performance and had very reasonable cost.

Healthcare is a industry that has many intrinsic market failures build in. This is something all economist have known for a long time.

Buying food is a little less of a life and death situation, then getting medication or treatment or going to the doctor, but sure you could make an argument to prohibit grocery stores from making a profit.

I was just merely pointing out that in today's economy all privately run industries must make some kind of profit and at 3% of revenue for the health insurance industry, I don't think its excessive. In comparison, Apple has a profit of about 20% of revenue.

Beauregard
March 10th, 2017, 11:48 PM
Health care is not a right per se I would say.
I'm sure it sucks if part of the money you earn goes to a health care you will probably never need in your life.
But if people aren't healthy they aren't able to work and need other social benefits the other working people have to pay for. So I don't see much difference here in what your money is taken for by the government.

As long as you are young healthy and have a job every money you have to give to the government is kinda unfair from a point of view but once you are sick old or jobless I think a lot of people will change this opinion. So really tough stuff I don't even wanna pretend to understand.

bentheplayer
March 11th, 2017, 12:08 AM
Based on the the epidemiology of medical expenses in the US, 1% of the total population consumes 25% of medical care (by cost), 5% of the population consumes 49% and 50% of the population consumes only 3% of medical care by cost. Relatively few people incur rare, huge, often catastrophic costs on a largely unexpected basis so pooling of risk is necessary and this is basically how insurance works.

Actually I find it rather strange that people can claim to be pro-life when they refuse to even support the life of these 1-5% of people who are already born and living but would die without healthcare.

Beauregard
March 11th, 2017, 12:18 AM
Based on the the epidemiology of medical expenses in the US, 1% of the total population consumes 25% of medical care (by cost), 5% of the population consumes 49% and 50% of the population consumes only 3% of medical care by cost. Relatively few people incur rare, huge, often catastrophic costs on a largely unexpected basis so pooling of risk is necessary and this is basically how insurance works.

Actually I find it rather strange that people can claim to be pro-life when they refuse to even support the life of these 1-5% of people who are already born and living but would die without healthcare.

This figures are really interesting. They make it always sound as if it is so much more.

But people just think about themselves that's the big problem.

Just JT
March 11th, 2017, 04:55 AM
OH MY GOD!!! You mean actually supporting the poor? YOU COMMIE BASTARD!!!
Seriously though, people need to get over the whole socialist idea, it's not new. America already has socialist ideas: the military/defense, the police force, the fire dept., public libraries, public schools, all government funded infrastructure such as roads and highways. THE ENTIRE IDEA OF A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM IS A SOCIALIST IDEA. The president of America is payed for with our taxes in order to benefit all of society. THAT IS SOCIALISM. Without socialism, we'd have nothing. Pure capitalism is Anarchy. We're a socialist/capitalist nation, get over it.
Here's 75 ways that America is already socialist
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29/1078852/-75-Ways-Socialism-Has-Improved-America

Because you're a decent human being who cares? Just like everybody in the UK, people pay taxes so that everyone can have healthcare, it's called being a civilized society that cares for one another.

Also, all these other countries have already done it: https://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/


Sounds like your very contradictory here. Which way are you swinging? Calling it socialism or an humanitarian effort?

Beauregard
March 11th, 2017, 07:51 AM
Sounds like your very contradictory here. Which way are you swinging? Calling it socialism or an humanitarian effort?

I thought this socialism calling was meant ironic but I can be wrong here.

maddogmj77
March 11th, 2017, 08:55 AM
Sounds like your very contradictory here. Which way are you swinging? Calling it socialism or an humanitarian effort?

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

That's not really what I'm advocating for. What I am advocating for is universal healthcare, which would be a Socialist idea, just like those other 75 ways that America is already Socialist. I do not advocate for full-on Socialism or Communism economics in any way.

Just JT
March 11th, 2017, 08:59 AM
Somits like a pendulum from capitalism and communism right? And socialism is somewhere along that swing back and forth right?

So wouldn't you need to have ideas and theories introduced before you can acutualy introduce an entire economic system?
maddogmj77

mattsmith48
March 11th, 2017, 09:35 AM
I was just merely pointing out that in today's economy all privately run industries must make some kind of profit and at 3% of revenue for the health insurance industry, I don't think its excessive:. In comparison, Apple has a profit of about 20% of revenue.

I never said that it their profit was excessive I just said it was wrong that they are allowed to make a profit in the first place, same with pharma companies. There is nothing wrong with apple making a big profit as long they pay taxes on it. You are not going to die if you don't have an iPhone 7 because it's too expensive, but if you don't have an Epipen because you can't afford it you will probably die.

bentheplayer
March 11th, 2017, 09:59 AM
I never said that it their profit was excessive I just said it was wrong that they are allowed to make a profit in the first place, same with pharma companies. There is nothing wrong with apple making a big profit as long they pay taxes on it. You are not going to die if you don't have an iPhone 7 because it's too expensive, but if you don't have an Epipen because you can't afford it you will probably die.

You are confusing the issue again. Insurance companies are largely price takers while the companies making Epipen are the price setters. The insurance companies in the context of US has little sway over such pricing. The boogeyman isn't the insurance companies but rather big pharma and the device manufacturers. Insurance companies are no different from the government single payer idea except that one is a private administrator and the other is a public administrator. It is puzzling that you keep attacking the insurance companies when focusing on big pharma will produce bigger and quantifiable results.

The solution of preventing such profits will be nationalizing these companies but many governments like the US don't have a good history of proper management of these entities. Incidentally, why is it wrong for companies in the health sector to expect a profit? Why should they not even be allowed to make a profit, no matter how small it is? Even in Canada, this isn't done as there is a certain degree of distaste for socialized medicine.

Read this (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/02/12/is-the-profit-motive-ruining-american-healthcare/#6a4595937b97) for a better understanding of the US health industry.

maddogmj77
March 11th, 2017, 10:07 AM
Somits like a pendulum from capitalism and communism right? And socialism is somewhere along that swing back and forth right?

So wouldn't you need to have ideas and theories introduced before you can acutualy introduce an entire economic system?
maddogmj77

I'm not really sure actually, but if you go back to one of my earlier posts, I explained why pure Capitalism would be anarchy; the entire idea of a government system is socialist. Without it, no police force, fire dep't., roads, highways, parks, public libraries or schools, nothing with any public/gov't. funding.

which leads to socialism, which then leads to communism. The term "socialized medicine" is even used to describe universal healthcare. Lenin and other communist leaders advocated for the same thing liberals are advocating for today. Free healthcare, government welfare, redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, economic equality, "fair share" taxation, authoritarianism, etc. Now you tell me that you aren't advocating a socialist/communist agenda.

This will not lead to Socialism, or Communism, nor do I wish it to. That would require the entire restructuring of our economic system. Are you seriously scared because of what they call it? I am advocating for a socialist idea, not Leninism or Communism. Do you oppose the entire idea of a government system at all? No public schools? No Police or Fire dept.? No public healthcare system? Because those are all socialist ideas.

Our government is supposed to be elected to protect our inalienable rights, one of which is life, and right now, it's not doing that.

bentheplayer
March 11th, 2017, 10:33 AM
Our government is supposed to be elected to protect our inalienable rights, one of which is life, and right now, it's not doing that.

I won't be surprised if they say that right to life doesn't include right to healthcare.

Uniquemind
March 11th, 2017, 02:06 PM
You are confusing the issue again. Insurance companies are largely price takers while the companies making Epipen are the price setters. The insurance companies in the context of US has little sway over such pricing. The boogeyman isn't the insurance companies but rather big pharma and the device manufacturers. Insurance companies are no different from the government single payer idea except that one is a private administrator and the other is a public administrator. It is puzzling that you keep attacking the insurance companies when focusing on big pharma will produce bigger and quantifiable results.

The solution of preventing such profits will be nationalizing these companies but many governments like the US don't have a good history of proper management of these entities. Incidentally, why is it wrong for companies in the health sector to expect a profit? Why should they not even be allowed to make a profit, no matter how small it is? Even in Canada, this isn't done as there is a certain degree of distaste for socialized medicine.

Read this (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterubel/2014/02/12/is-the-profit-motive-ruining-american-healthcare/#6a4595937b97) for a better understanding of the US health industry.



Now this is a concern and a respectable rebuttal position to universal healthcare in the US, especially on the Research and Development side of things.

I don't know maybe the R&D side of things should be privatized, but once older proven medical procedures and products people are already used too are out, those supply chains become stabilized by government so as to protect those vital products and procedures from being price hiked for stock market profit on the original manufacturer/ developer.

A mix of private and public.

--


Also if we do nothing due to the fear of socialized medicine is point A that leads to full blown communism/socialism, we have a fallacy here. Because we can stop the process at point B or C, rather than having to let the process go all the way to Z.

And let's hypothetically say we do nothing. Given the way incomes are rising in comparison to costs, healthcare insurance and healthcare products for those who can afford it suffers too.

It suffers because as cost rises, the market of those who will get insurance and medical products shrinks and people go without.

The market crashes either way, or you have a national health vulnerability if a disease strikes on a pandemic scale, a national security issue and a global one.

bentheplayer
March 11th, 2017, 02:46 PM
Uniquemind the truth is that universal healthcare will eat away into the profits of various stakeholders in the healthcare market hence this extreme resistance against it. The healthcare market has done a tremendous job in marketing this perverse notion that government intervention is bad. This is all about self interest really and perception manipulation of the masses.

Looking back into history, the term socialized medicine was coined in the early 20th century by physicians in the preventive health department of the American Medical Association without any negative connotation/association. The idea is that socialized medicine was the way forward in a war against diseases like tb which many poor people could not afford to seek help for and to take a proactive preventive approach to illnesses. Somewhere around the mid 20th century, the conservatives started linking socialized medicine to those who represented socialism, and by extension, communism. During that time, doctors in the AMA feared that if the govt took over healthcare they would end up becoming puppets of the state and earn less too. As such they too joined in this fear mongering of socialized medicine. Even popular programs like Mediaid/Medicare were dissed as socialized medicine back then.

Strictly speaking, the best definition of socialized care is used to describe health systems in which the government operates both the production of health care and provides its financing which is not done by any developed country. This term socialized medicine is constantly being distorted and loosely used by conservatives. I.e. it is merely a political pejorative that has been defined to mean different levels of government involvement in health care, depending on what the speaker was arguing against at the time.

Looking purely at statistics, the various arguments against universal healthcare on cost of care, quality of care, taxation, rationing(access, coverage, time) don't hold. Countries with UHC seem to be paying less on a whole but getting better outcomes. Its sheer stupidity on the consumers' part to not demand for the best bang for their buck in healthcare. Even if healthcare spend levels in the US were the same, there is still a lot of spare capacity to raise healthcare outcomes if only they were willing to bring in greater regulation.

Uniquemind
March 11th, 2017, 08:50 PM
Uniquemind the truth is that universal healthcare will eat away into the profits of various stakeholders in the healthcare market hence this extreme resistance against it. The healthcare market has done a tremendous job in marketing this perverse notion that government intervention is bad. This is all about self interest really and perception manipulation of the masses.

Looking back into history, the term socialized medicine was coined in the early 20th century by physicians in the preventive health department of the American Medical Association without any negative connotation/association. The idea is that socialized medicine was the way forward in a war against diseases like tb which many poor people could not afford to seek help for and to take a proactive preventive approach to illnesses. Somewhere around the mid 20th century, the conservatives started linking socialized medicine to those who represented socialism, and by extension, communism. During that time, doctors in the AMA feared that if the govt took over healthcare they would end up becoming puppets of the state and earn less too. As such they too joined in this fear mongering of socialized medicine. Even popular programs like Mediaid/Medicare were dissed as socialized medicine back then.

Strictly speaking, the best definition of socialized care is used to describe health systems in which the government operates both the production of health care and provides its financing which is not done by any developed country. This term socialized medicine is constantly being distorted and loosely used by conservatives. I.e. it is merely a political pejorative that has been defined to mean different levels of government involvement in health care, depending on what the speaker was arguing against at the time.

Looking purely at statistics, the various arguments against universal healthcare on cost of care, quality of care, taxation, rationing(access, coverage, time) don't hold. Countries with UHC seem to be paying less on a whole but getting better outcomes. Its sheer stupidity on the consumers' part to not demand for the best bang for their buck in healthcare. Even if healthcare spend levels in the US were the same, there is still a lot of spare capacity to raise healthcare outcomes if only they were willing to bring in greater regulation.

Yeah I get the history behind the issue and demonization of various terms like "socialized medicine".

My mom had a neck surgery issue around 2007-2009, and I heard those conversations about cost and all that at the dinner table.

---

Also every country has their own system too.

There was a Frontline special about the French, German, Britain's NHS, Taiwan, and Canadian systems and how they compared contrasted to each other and compare to the US system Pre-Obamacare.

Some of the problems Obamacare solved get reopened with the new Republican plan.

Devinsoccer
March 11th, 2017, 09:03 PM
I'm a republican, so you know which side I'm on... Trumps.

There is no real way to put healthcare in politics. There is none. Its either the goverment requires it or doesn't. I honestly don't think it has to be required. I'll give you Devincare, if I ever become president.(some might call me an independent after reading this)

No one person has to get healthcare, as it is not a right, but a choice. No insurance company is allowed to reject someone's application for insurance due to pre existing health conditions. Insurance companies are also allowed to work accross states with the same policies. If you can not afford healthcare, fananial assistance can be offered. [end]

Beauregard
March 11th, 2017, 09:54 PM
I'm a republican, so you know which side I'm on... Trumps.

There is no real way to put healthcare in politics. There is none. Its either the goverment requires it or doesn't. I honestly don't think it has to be required. I'll give you Devincare, if I ever become president.(some might call me an independent after reading this)

No one person has to get healthcare, as it is not a right, but a choice. No insurance company is allowed to reject someone's application for insurance due to pre existing health conditions. Insurance companies are also allowed to work accross states with the same policies. If you can not afford healthcare, fananial assistance can be offered. [end]

Sounds all real great. So if you choose not to get insurance since you need the money for other stuff to support your family and the get cancer should you been condemned to die just because you made a bad choice when you were younger?

If you have chronic diseases and the company knows you will cost it way more money than you pay why should it be forced to take you on. To forbid a company to freely choose who to take and who to reject so how do you do it and keep politics out of it?

Do you know what it costs to do let's say cancer treatment with surgery, chemotherapy, hospital stays, meds and all that belongs to it? So how many financial assistance do you think a working class family would need to shoulder the cancer treatment of the Dad who had to stop working due to the illness and they have hardly any income left?
Where should the money for the financial assistance come from? The government? Taxes? Why should I be forced by the government to pay taxes for that if the government wants to keep the health care thing free and independent?
Should this financial assistance have to be payed back ? Who pays it when the one who.got it dies despite the treatment financed with it?

So you see a lot I don't get about your health care or health care in general.

I feel it's way more complicated than Trump and the Republicans thought. It's sad that the Republicans wasted years whining how bad Obamacare is instead of working on a practicable solution in between.

So many countries have been able to do a working healthcare for ages so it's somehow embarrassing to the world the US can't figure that one out.

Devinsoccer
March 12th, 2017, 12:02 AM
Sounds all real great. So if you choose not to get insurance since you need the money for other stuff to support your family and the get cancer should you been condemned to die just because you made a bad choice when you were younger?

If you have chronic diseases and the company knows you will cost it way more money than you pay why should it be forced to take you on. To forbid a company to freely choose who to take and who to reject so how do you do it and keep politics out of it?

Do you know what it costs to do let's say cancer treatment with surgery, chemotherapy, hospital stays, meds and all that belongs to it? So how many financial assistance do you think a working class family would need to shoulder the cancer treatment of the Dad who had to stop working due to the illness and they have hardly any income left?
Where should the money for the financial assistance come from? The government? Taxes? Why should I be forced by the government to pay taxes for that if the government wants to keep the health care thing free and independent?
Should this financial assistance have to be payed back ? Who pays it when the one who.got it dies despite the treatment financed with it?

So you see a lot I don't get about your health care or health care in general.

I feel it's way more complicated than Trump and the Republicans thought. It's sad that the Republicans wasted years whining how bad Obamacare is instead of working on a practicable solution in between.

So many countries have been able to do a working healthcare for ages so it's somehow embarrassing to the world the US can't figure that one out.
Isn't this country free? Cause I thought it was, and if it is free, we are able to choose. Companys don't have to give healthcare, can they get sued if you get hurt on the job, yes. Its not the governments job to mandate health insurance. If your rich and can afford doctors visits, and surguries, they shouldn't be required to get health insurance. No one person should be fined on heir choices. I also said, that insurance companies can not reject you if you have a pre existing medical condTion. I also said that the government cam help you in finantial assistance, so you cam afford it. I honestly think its sad that the democrats think you can't make your own choices. The government should be there to protect. Protect our freedom. We have laws to make sure you are safe, if you break the law, you pay a fine, do community service or you loose your freedom because your a threat. We let you have a second chance in a courtroom. We have the military to protect us fromterrorists and war. We have many services to protect and for you to serve for. The ACA was never read. Poor people arnt even being protected because of ourageous deductables. My mother couldn't even get her medication, BUT she was before ACA. The ACA failed to give people affordable health insurance. We all know politics is currupt and both parties are currupt. In the ACA poor people get insurance "for free" where is that comming from?

Beauregard
March 12th, 2017, 12:32 AM
Isn't this country free? Cause I thought it was, and if it is free, we are able to choose. Companys don't have to give healthcare, can they get sued if you get hurt on the job, yes. Its not the governments job to mandate health insurance. If your rich and can afford doctors visits, and surguries, they shouldn't be required to get health insurance. No one person should be fined on heir choices. I also said, that insurance companies can not reject you if you have a pre existing medical condTion. I also said that the government cam help you in finantial assistance, so you cam afford it. I honestly think its sad that the democrats think you can't make your own choices. The government should be there to protect. Protect our freedom. We have laws to make sure you are safe, if you break the law, you pay a fine, do community service or you loose your freedom because your a threat. We let you have a second chance in a courtroom. We have the military to protect us fromterrorists and war. We have many services to protect and for you to serve for. The ACA was never read. Poor people arnt even being protected because of ourageous deductables. My mother couldn't even get her medication, BUT she was before ACA. The ACA failed to give people affordable health insurance. We all know politics is currupt and both parties are currupt. In the ACA poor people get insurance "for free" where is that comming from?

I don't really get how this answers my questions about health care at all. My point is why it's so hard to create a working system here in the USA why so many other countries like in Europe seem to have no problem with it.
I just don't get why this is such a big deal. A working insurance system would be a benefit for everyone. I don't see how European countries that have a working health insurance are not free the are as free as we are here.
Why would having a working health care system bother my freedom more than paying taxes in general? I give a certain amount of my income and with that some health insurance is financed that is how it works in European countries in a simplified way at least as far as I have read and was told by adults.
I don't have the freedom to say I don't pay my taxes cuz I don't want my money to go to certain things funded with it.
So honestly I don't get the fuzz made about it.
I am all for freedom and things but for me the problem is as I said before that whatever government we have is too stupid to come up with a proper solution.

We need to find a system that caters for everybody's needs and can be financed in a way that is as fair as possible to all our people.

Devinsoccer
March 12th, 2017, 12:40 AM
We need to find a system that caters for everybody's needs and can be financed in a way that is as fair as possible to all our people.

Which the US will never find, because people will never find a happy medeum, because too little monet, I would fail, and too much money, it will fail. And in the middle, it will still fail.

Beauregard
March 12th, 2017, 12:53 AM
Which the US will never find, because people will never find a happy medeum, because too little monet, I would fail, and too much money, it will fail. And in the middle, it will still fail.

If others could do it we can do it too.
Just giving up because it might be difficult is not how our country became great. Hard work, good ideas and leaders that can excite the people for their cause is how we got our place in the world. Giving up when something seems difficult is not the way to make America great again.


So what's the alternative to please everyone having no healthcare at all. People who have enough money to go see a doctor, buy meds, go to hospital for surgery can do for their health whatever they feel like and the rest? Fuck em? If you are poor you don't deserve better and can go and die? Or maybe you can beg at some charity organisation or crowd funding stuff I often see for funerals?
Should be the solution that works for everyone.

Devinsoccer
March 12th, 2017, 01:01 AM
Which the US will never find, because people will never find a happy medeum, because too little monet, I would fail, and too much money, it will fail. And in the middle, it will still fail.

If others could do it we can do it too.
Just giving up because it might be difficult is not how our country became great. Hard work, good ideas and leaders that can excite the people for their cause is how we got our place in the world. Giving up when something seems difficult is not the way to make America great again.


So what's the alternative to please everyone having no healthcare at all. People who have enough money to go see a doctor, buy meds, go to hospital for surgery can do for their health whatever they feel like and the rest? Fuck em? If you are poor you don't deserve better and can go and die? Or maybe you can beg at some charity organisation or crowd funding stuff I often see for funerals?
Should be the solution that works for everyone.

What I'm saying is people have different views, and a lot of the people want it one way or another. I want health care to be a choice, not a requirement. Making healthcare a requirement causes inflation in the healthcare buisness and due to cause and effect (or supply and demand) rates go higher, deductables go higher. There is no gettimg around peoples views. A lot of people will find my healthcare "dumb" "stupid" "only for the rich". I say any healthcare, including no health care would fail. Even mine would fail.

bentheplayer
March 12th, 2017, 01:09 AM
What I'm saying is people have different views, and a lot of the people want it one way or another. I want health care to be a choice, not a requirement. Making healthcare a requirement causes inflation in the healthcare buisness and due to cause and effect (or supply and demand) rates go higher, deductables go higher. There is no gettimg around peoples views. A lot of people will find my healthcare "dumb" "stupid" "only for the rich". I say any healthcare, including no health care would fail. Even mine would fail.

Does this mean that you are willing to go without healthcare even if u can't afford it?

Anyways healthcare is always a work in progress. First off the usual tenets of demand and supply isn't like what you are suggesting. Aca was the first step to address the demand side and the second step is to address the supply side through regulation (which was not done).

Devinsoccer
March 12th, 2017, 01:19 AM
Does this mean that you are willing to go without healthcare even if u can't afford it?

Anyways healthcare is always a work in progress. First off the usual tenets of demand and supply isn't like what you are suggesting. Aca was the first step to address the demand side and the second step is to address the supply side through regulation (which was not done).

I would go without healthcare if I had to.

You also just proved my point on why the ACA failed. Also, if congress actually looked at the ACA to make sure of any mistakes, the ACA would be affordable. I don't think we should be penalized for not having insurance. You could get tax breaks if you do have it. My mother also went to the hospital for a broken sholure. Our indurance paid for less than 20% of the medical costs. Luckally we were able to pay for it, but we lost a huge chunk of money, and put ourselves into some debt, that still has yet to be completely paid off. If this happend to someone that was poor, RIP to them. The ACA is like having no healthcare at all anyway.

bentheplayer
March 12th, 2017, 01:43 AM
You also just proved my point on why the ACA failed. Also, if congress actually looked at the ACA to make sure of any mistakes, the ACA would be affordable. I don't think we should be penalized for not having insurance. You could get tax breaks if you do have it. My mother also went to the hospital for a broken sholure. Our indurance paid for less than 20% of the medical costs. Luckally we were able to pay for it, but we lost a huge chunk of money, and put ourselves into some debt, that still has yet to be completely paid off. If this happend to someone that was poor, RIP to them. The ACA is like having no healthcare at all anyway.

I never said that Aca is the silver bullet but merely the first step.one has to be delusional to think that healthcare can be solved with one grand policy. Is ur insurance even under ACA? Isn't even the bronze plan supposed to cover 60%? I suppose this will also depend on ur deductible and copay rates too.

Devinsoccer
March 12th, 2017, 09:42 AM
I never said that Aca is the silver bullet but merely the first step.one has to be delusional to think that healthcare can be solved with one grand policy. Is ur insurance even under ACA? Isn't even the bronze plan supposed to cover 60%? I suppose this will also depend on ur deductible and copay rates too.

My insurance is under the ACA, because in florida, its required.

The ACA is also bad for the middle class.

bentheplayer
March 12th, 2017, 10:09 AM
The ACA is also bad for the middle class.

The middle class is pretty much the same in most western societies where they are usually the squeezed class. Even the definition of middle class has expanded too. The working class are too poor to tax and the upper class are too mobile and powerful to tax.

Beauregard
March 12th, 2017, 11:13 PM
My insurance is under the ACA, because in florida, its required.

The ACA is also bad for the middle class.

You're parents insurance that covers yours I assume? I doubt you have your own insurance when you are 15 and insurance is under ACA.

The middle class is pretty much the same in most western societies where they are usually the squeezed class. Even the definition of middle class has expanded too. The working class are too poor to tax and the upper class are too mobile and powerful to tax.

I feel no group is taxed more than it can live with. The problem of the middle class is that they always feel unfairly treated. Instead of being glad that their working efforts results in enough wealth to live a comfortable and secure life and that they don't face the struggles the really poor , do they are compaining the can't all live a high class celebrity lifestyle.
People are just not content with what they have and that's why they are against every cent the state takes of them.
And that is basically were the opposition against health insurance is rooted, either.
They overspend their 5 credit cards to buy a bigger car, dine at a restaurant and do a cruise for vacation every year. If they would be content with car matching their financial situation or visit grandma in Kansas for a vacation the income would cover any health insurance plan that could be made up. But they say they rather go without health insurance trusting in the goodwill of other who pay for their cancer treatment once they need it.

I don't see the middle class as the forgotten and most squeezed as they like to suggest. I see them as the most irresponsible and egotistic who always blames those who are poorer and those who are richer for all their misfortunes instead of seeing how well they really fare.

bentheplayer
March 13th, 2017, 12:18 AM
I feel no group is taxed more than it can live with. The problem of the middle class is that they always feel unfairly treated. Instead of being glad that their working efforts results in enough wealth to live a comfortable and secure life and that they don't face the struggles the really poor , do they are complaining the can't all live a high class celebrity lifestyle.
People are just not content with what they have and that's why they are against every cent the state takes of them.
And that is basically were the opposition against health insurance is rooted, either.

They overspend their 5 credit cards to buy a bigger car, dine at a restaurant and do a cruise for vacation every year. If they would be content with car matching their financial situation or visit grandma in Kansas for a vacation the income would cover any health insurance plan that could be made up. But they say they rather go without health insurance trusting in the goodwill of other who pay for their cancer treatment once they need it.

I don't see the middle class as the forgotten and most squeezed as they like to suggest. I see them as the most irresponsible and egotistic who always blames those who are poorer and those who are richer for all their misfortunes instead of seeing how well they really fare.

Thank you. I wanted to say that but dared not least I be accused of being ignorant to their "struggles". A big part of this is about how they choose to spend their money and not to live within their means. They can't expect to consume more without earning more. The concept of saving is pretty non-existent anyways considering the number of people in the supposed middle class living from paycheck to paycheck. They love to extol the virtues of self-responsibility of healthcare as long as its not their skin and complain of the government stealing their income.

Voice_Of_Unreason
March 13th, 2017, 04:30 PM
My earlier statements went crazily out of context. I was simply stating that people would not pay for health insurance if there was no profit in it. For some reason everyone thought I was talking about economic collapse, in which I wasn't. But lets ignore that and proceed on.

My biggest problem with this is that people are skewing the term "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Freedoms and rights, in basic terms, is the ability of people to do as they may without government interference. You have the right to have a happy, free, healthy life. Using the definition of a right, it is saying that the government does not have the ability to strip you of that freedom and your life. This definition fits historically well, and it can fit with the Constitutional rights.

People have the right to access healthcare, however y'all seem to be adding another "right" into the mix. We do not have the right to enough money to get healthcare. We do not have the right to take money from other people to get healthcare. That is the exact opposite of a right! Being forced to pay for someone else's "Right to life" is no longer a right, but forced servitude by the government.

Remember the very document you keep saying support free healthcare, the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" document you keep spouting? Well, if you look at it you will realize that it doesn't say that governments gives those rights to people, but God. And the government's job is not to hand-out rights, but to protect those given by God from those who would want to take them away. By your logic, the government should be giving out free guns so people can better protect their lives from others, since we do have a right to self-defense and guns, and it goes towards prolonging our lives, so why not?

The sooner you realize that governments cannot "give out" inalienable rights, the wiser you will be.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of you probably are still unconvinced, and still believe that free healthcare is a "right" and the government's job should be to make our lives happier and easier, but let's ask some questions...

Is it not detrimental to the "pursuit of happiness" for people to have to pay thousands more for health insurance than they did prior to the ACA?

Is it not detrimental to "liberty" to force people to buy insurance they don't want nor need?

Is it not detrimental to "life" to have people drop their health insurance because "paying their fair share" made premiums too high for them to reasonably pay?

Beauregard
March 13th, 2017, 10:41 PM
I have a very huge problem with the no right to have the money for health care statement and not forcing people to give money into healthcare.

I mean people don't want to pay for others and they are not saving money for themselves and then they or their family member falls I'll and then there's a huge outcry. The world's so mean nobody helps us our beloved whoever has to die as we cannot afford the costs of surgery etc. Then this GoFundMe thing is done. There's begging for money in church gatherings and so on.

I have a personal story there. My father is very much active in local politics and church and all. And despite being a rather conservative person he is very much pro health insurance and all. There used to be one certain guy who always greatly criticised my father for advocating healthcare saying he wouldn't spend money for this shit and he doesn't want to be forced to give up part of his money to finance health insurance for the poor and lazy.
Then his daughter fell ill and medical bills started eating up everything they had. They started asking for money from the people from our church and other means. One argument of our preacher was it's our Christian duty to help.
Sure my family also contributed and sure I want the poor girl to heal.So don't get me wrong about it but secretly I was outraged.
After all the crap from this man why is it suddenly everyone's Christian duty to help him? Why is it an enfringement of personal rights when government says pay an amount of money towards funding insurance for everyone? Those money rising is nothing else imo. Who would say no if your priest asks you?

I hate those double standards with all my heart. I really just see this rejection as pure egoism.

Yeah, end of rant, sorry.

bentheplayer
March 13th, 2017, 11:20 PM
My biggest problem with this is that people are skewing the term "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Freedoms and rights, in basic terms, is the ability of people to do as they may without government interference. You have the right to have a happy, free, healthy life. Using the definition of a right, it is saying that the government does not have the ability to strip you of that freedom and your life. This definition fits historically well, and it can fit with the Constitutional rights.

All forms of freedom and rights are not absolute even in the US and in fact these rights are guaranteed by the government since it is the judicial branch that recognise these rights and it is the executive branch that is charged with upholding these rights. Isn’t this in itself government interference? The constitution basically charges the government to uphold all these right. Rights is a pillar of society and structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived. Without a government, there will be no rights since no one can enforce rights.

People have the right to access healthcare, however y'all seem to be adding another "right" into the mix. We do not have the right to enough money to get healthcare. We do not have the right to take money from other people to get healthcare. That is the exact opposite of a right! Being forced to pay for someone else's "Right to life" is no longer a right, but forced servitude by the government.

Again you are taking this idea to the extreme. Right to life is merely the idea that one should not be killed by another human being. At best one could only argue that taxation affects liberty. However, these rights are not absolute since all the constitution says is that these rights should not be deprived without due process of the law. Evidently, the Supreme Court has already cleared ACA from any constitutional issues so any that you mere perceive are merely figments of your imagination or lack of understanding of the law. This is not servitude which is when you are not allowed to do anything of your own will. You are not being enslaved by the government but you need to work within the framework of the law. It is ludicrous statement to make as you are also effectively saying that you are a slave to the law.

Remember the very document you keep saying support free healthcare, the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" document you keep spouting? Well, if you look at it you will realize that it doesn't say that governments gives those rights to people, but God. And the government's job is not to hand-out rights, but to protect those given by God from those who would want to take them away. By your logic, the government should be giving out free guns so people can better protect their lives from others, since we do have a right to self-defense and guns, and it goes towards prolonging our lives, so why not?

The sooner you realize that governments cannot "give out" inalienable rights, the wiser you will be.

Where is it stated that these rights are bestowed by God? While the framers may have been inspired by their God, I don’t recall seeing the word God in the Bill of Rights. The Bill Of Rights can only at best be said to be a reflection of the framers Christian heritage nothing more. Besides no country in the world has a complete right to healthcare like what you are suggesting. In all countries, some kind of rationing occurs be it through price or some other means. The provision of guns is a false analogy since one does not need guns to survive and the police are provided for to protect those rights.
In reality, many philosophers like Rawls have explained that universal entitlement to certain types of healthcare can be grounded in the liberty principle. Undoubtedly, the most common argument will be that proposed by Nozick. However, this will lead to the fundamental question of whether liberty is for all or just the rich. Without any form of wealth redistribution, the economic differences between the rich and poor wide be extremely vast and these differences will lead to a denial of liberty. This is basic economics where the poor don’t have the freedom to live where they want or afford legal representation or pay for a superior private education. This vicious cycle will only further entrench the gap between the haves and have-nots, making it clear that liberty is inextricably linked to one’s economic position. So based on this premise, either you support liberties for all or the rich. Healthcare, education and national security are one of the few goods that help maintain liberty for all and hence many governments take special interest in them.



Is it not detrimental to the "pursuit of happiness" for people to have to pay thousands more for health insurance than they did prior to the ACA?

This is not absolute as these people are merely being selfish. Besides is the pursuit of happiness of others who are poor unimportant? The rights of the others are also being ignored with this argument. Also if we were to see pursuit of happiness as a continuum and not merely for the present it would be prudent to plan for ill health before it happens be it through insurance or what not.

Is it not detrimental to "liberty" to force people to buy insurance they don't want nor need?

I have already explained in the past that in any self-governing state, the individuals of that state/society must in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of certain freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all members of that state/society. Consider the fact that the courts have judged that national security trumps freedom of speech. So yes it does impinge on liberty in the form of taxation but some would consider that impingement as justifiable and even one in a bid to uphold the liberty of all members of society. Considering that congress has a duty to provide for the general welfare of the USA which by extension US citizens, the argument that healthcare is unconstitutional is very weak.

Is it not detrimental to "life" to have people drop their health insurance because "paying their fair share" made premiums too high for them to reasonably pay?

Again why would they be dropping health insurance when the purpose of ACA is to have universal coverage? Granted there are some current issues but this doesn’t mean that it is all bad but needs improvement like greater supply side regulation and tweaking of the ACA regulations. I think it would be unreasonable to expect ACA to be totally perfect when healthcare is such a complex issue.

Beauregard After going through theology, I have found no where that says that Christians should be against Universal Healthcare. In fact there are a number of instances that highly suggests that Christians have the responsibility to provide some kind of healthcare to all if they were in power and control of public policy. Among various methods proposed, risk pooling or insurance is probably still one of the best and most effective solution based on empirical data.

Have you also heard of the idea that Christians want to keep poverty so that they continue their charitable acts? Isn't this sheer hypocrisy and no different from the pharisees of the past? Much of their argument centers around the rightness of tax (tax is theft in their own words) and that the bible doesn't talk about what the government should do even though it was alluded to in various old testament books. Considering that the bible was written for individuals or private citizens and not the government obviously there will be minimal mention of governance. However, it is quite clear that even concepts of redistribution of wealth is part of what God saw as good based on ideas of debt forgiveness and stuff.

Katie96xox
March 20th, 2017, 09:19 AM
You ask a very simple question. Is healthcare a right?

I can find no mention of healthcare in the Constitution of the United States, therefore regardless of you're opinion on whether the USA should adopt universal healthcare or not, it is unquestionably not a right.

eric2001
March 20th, 2017, 03:37 PM
The reason America exists is to ensure certain unalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is from the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
Life cannot be ensured without healthcare.

Uniquemind
March 29th, 2017, 11:23 PM
And again I repeat, medical diseases are an issue of national security.

Anything in a country's infrastructure that affects that by linkage, therefore with common sense be seen as something the government has a role to play in especially when it's a problem that goes across state and international lines.

Not to mention huge interstate commerce ripple effects into property values which affect well land value, and therefore many businesses.

Voice_Of_Unreason
March 30th, 2017, 02:08 PM
...Life cannot be ensured without healthcare.And as you may have read, it does not state that you have the right to other people's property to ensure your own existence. No where, in the Declaration of Independence nor the Consistution does it say that private citizens or the government must pay for the personal rights of individuals. The government promotes the general welfare, not provides it.

I'm not going to keep arguing this though, I've already stated it numerous times and people still just want their free stuff.

maddogmj77
March 30th, 2017, 09:04 PM
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/videos/10155776561402908/

In related news, Bernie Sanders has his proposition to lower prescription drug prices.
Will anyone be able to work with him?
Will the Senate & House be willing to work across party lines for the greater good?
HA!!!
No.