Topic: The "universal healthcare" argument in a nutshell.
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #115,766
What if we forced everyone to pay into a government monopoly. If they fail, or are inefficient, or discriminate that's too bad because you can't opt-out of paying them.We'll defend this by saying you can pay a second time (because the first time was so easy?) to a private corporation for actual care.
If you disagree, it's because you're heartless and full of hate created by evil american whites (esp. heebs). Healthcare monopolists refuse to entertain the idea of healthcare credits that sick patients could use at an establishment of their choice.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #1,278,926
Health insurance is ALREADY literally that.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 30 seconds later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,927
> hypotheticals hypotheticals hypotheticals
yawn
yawn
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,929
Even Ben Shapiro admits there are socialized healthcare systems better than America’s system lol 😝
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,935
@1,278,926 (B)
It is not, you can chose your hospital in a capitalist system. In soviet-style monopolistic healthcare systems you are paying into one company, and you must hope that company functions properly.
It is not, you can chose your hospital in a capitalist system. In soviet-style monopolistic healthcare systems you are paying into one company, and you must hope that company functions properly.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 39 seconds later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,936
@previous (A)
you think health insurance lets you choose shit? They have a "network" and if you go outside it, you pay 100%.
you think health insurance lets you choose shit? They have a "network" and if you go outside it, you pay 100%.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 45 seconds later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,937
@1,278,927 (C)
Neither system is hypothetical. Compare the US system of free choice and incentives for functioning business, and the UK system where you are forced into the crown's NHS disaster whether you want it or not.
Neither system is hypothetical. Compare the US system of free choice and incentives for functioning business, and the UK system where you are forced into the crown's NHS disaster whether you want it or not.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,938
@1,278,936 (B)
You can choose between the independent clinics in that network. You can choose insurance with a network that is better.
And no, most insurance still pays something if you go out-of-network, but they refuse to pay a certain amount. Which is a good thing, because if they paid whatever inflated costs asked, that money would end up coming from you as premiums anyway. Consumer don't want to pay astronomical premiums, so they choose insurance companies that put limits on expenses. You could always opt for the plans that cover more, but those plans obviously cost more.
You can choose between the independent clinics in that network. You can choose insurance with a network that is better.
And no, most insurance still pays something if you go out-of-network, but they refuse to pay a certain amount. Which is a good thing, because if they paid whatever inflated costs asked, that money would end up coming from you as premiums anyway. Consumer don't want to pay astronomical premiums, so they choose insurance companies that put limits on expenses. You could always opt for the plans that cover more, but those plans obviously cost more.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 31 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,939
The whole thing is a false dilemma. Western medicine, particularly in the US but this is true of other countries to some extent as well, has been made exorbitantly expensive by choking off the supply. It's illegal to "practise medicine without a license", so if you can prevent, delay, or stall the creation of new medical schools, you've captured the entire market.
Remove penalties for practising without a license and these problems will dissolve away within a decade. People shouldn't be mislead into thinking someone has a degree when they don't, but they also shouldn't be forced to pay someone for a degree they don't find important to begin with. Alternative training programs will be created with time.
I'm not against socialised healthcare. I think it's a good thing and I've had great experiences with it, but I don't think it's all that important. If the US in particular hadn't had 100+ years of market capture the costs would be a non-issue to begin with. It'd be cool if countries had socialised drinking water too, but no developed country needs it, so who really cares one way or the other, even if I do think it would be nice.
Amazing how almost every other product and tech-based industry has had costs drop orders of magnitude, while also having unthinkable levels of progress, yet the opposite has happened in medicine. Actually it's not really amazing at all. I just told you why it's happened. It's just amazing how discussions in general, everywhere, constantly get derailed into irrelevant side-discussions and tribalism so nothing ever productive happens.
Remove penalties for practising without a license and these problems will dissolve away within a decade. People shouldn't be mislead into thinking someone has a degree when they don't, but they also shouldn't be forced to pay someone for a degree they don't find important to begin with. Alternative training programs will be created with time.
I'm not against socialised healthcare. I think it's a good thing and I've had great experiences with it, but I don't think it's all that important. If the US in particular hadn't had 100+ years of market capture the costs would be a non-issue to begin with. It'd be cool if countries had socialised drinking water too, but no developed country needs it, so who really cares one way or the other, even if I do think it would be nice.
Amazing how almost every other product and tech-based industry has had costs drop orders of magnitude, while also having unthinkable levels of progress, yet the opposite has happened in medicine. Actually it's not really amazing at all. I just told you why it's happened. It's just amazing how discussions in general, everywhere, constantly get derailed into irrelevant side-discussions and tribalism so nothing ever productive happens.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,940
@1,278,938 (A)
Socialized healthcare is superior. You are getting ripped off with health insurance. you pay more per person than any other country on earth, with WORSE results than many countries.
Socialized healthcare is superior. You are getting ripped off with health insurance. you pay more per person than any other country on earth, with WORSE results than many countries.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,944
@previous (B)
If that's true, the politician who wants to implement it should fund it voluntarily and then let people have the option to use private insurance if the choose.
No politician would do that, because they know people wouldn't choose their clunky mess.
> you pay more per person than any other country on earth
Correct, because we know we'll get something for it.
No europoor would approve spending more money on their healthcare system, because the whole thing is useless.
If that's true, the politician who wants to implement it should fund it voluntarily and then let people have the option to use private insurance if the choose.
No politician would do that, because they know people wouldn't choose their clunky mess.
> you pay more per person than any other country on earth
Correct, because we know we'll get something for it.
No europoor would approve spending more money on their healthcare system, because the whole thing is useless.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,945
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,946
@1,278,939 (D)
> The whole thing is a false dilemma. Western medicine, particularly in the US but this is true of other countries to some extent as well, has been made exorbitantly expensive by choking off the supply. It's illegal to "practise medicine without a license", so if you can prevent, delay, or stall the creation of new medical schools, you've captured the entire market.
>
> Remove penalties for practising without a license and these problems will dissolve away within a decade. People shouldn't be mislead into thinking someone has a degree when they don't, but they also shouldn't be forced to pay someone for a degree they don't find important to begin with. Alternative training programs will be created with time.
Yes.
> I'm not against socialised healthcare. I think it's a good thing and I've had great experiences with it, but I don't think it's all that important. If the US in particular hadn't had 100+ years of market capture the costs would be a non-issue to begin with. It'd be cool if countries had socialised drinking water too, but no developed country needs it, so who really cares one way or the other, even if I do think it would be nice.
Why would you be in favor of forcing people to pay into a program, rather than letting those programs live or die on their own merit? Even if it worked fine once, why would you be in favor of removing the choice?
There's a lot of experiences I had that were great for me, but I'd see a problem if it suddenly became forced on others.
>
> Amazing how almost every other product and tech-based industry has had costs drop orders of magnitude, while also having unthinkable levels of progress, yet the opposite has happened in medicine. Actually it's not really amazing at all. I just told you why it's happened. It's just amazing how discussions in general, everywhere, constantly get derailed into irrelevant side-discussions and tribalism so nothing ever productive happens.
Marxian thought it the culprit, not freedom and choices.
> The whole thing is a false dilemma. Western medicine, particularly in the US but this is true of other countries to some extent as well, has been made exorbitantly expensive by choking off the supply. It's illegal to "practise medicine without a license", so if you can prevent, delay, or stall the creation of new medical schools, you've captured the entire market.
>
> Remove penalties for practising without a license and these problems will dissolve away within a decade. People shouldn't be mislead into thinking someone has a degree when they don't, but they also shouldn't be forced to pay someone for a degree they don't find important to begin with. Alternative training programs will be created with time.
Yes.
> I'm not against socialised healthcare. I think it's a good thing and I've had great experiences with it, but I don't think it's all that important. If the US in particular hadn't had 100+ years of market capture the costs would be a non-issue to begin with. It'd be cool if countries had socialised drinking water too, but no developed country needs it, so who really cares one way or the other, even if I do think it would be nice.
Why would you be in favor of forcing people to pay into a program, rather than letting those programs live or die on their own merit? Even if it worked fine once, why would you be in favor of removing the choice?
There's a lot of experiences I had that were great for me, but I'd see a problem if it suddenly became forced on others.
>
> Amazing how almost every other product and tech-based industry has had costs drop orders of magnitude, while also having unthinkable levels of progress, yet the opposite has happened in medicine. Actually it's not really amazing at all. I just told you why it's happened. It's just amazing how discussions in general, everywhere, constantly get derailed into irrelevant side-discussions and tribalism so nothing ever productive happens.
Marxian thought it the culprit, not freedom and choices.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 31 seconds later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,947
@1,278,945 (B)
> Take the NHS for example. It is great.
This is really one of the worst examples you could've used. And this is coming from someone who is sympathetic-to-supportive of socialisation in many areas, medicine included.
> Take the NHS for example. It is great.
This is really one of the worst examples you could've used. And this is coming from someone who is sympathetic-to-supportive of socialisation in many areas, medicine included.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,948
@1,278,945 (B)
If the NHS was great, they wouldn't need to force people to pay into it.
Imagine the NHS were funded voluntarily. You can pay premiums, and receive the same services, or choose to go to a private company.
Would the NHS survive? No, it would be supplanted by a different corporation, because people would prefer to pay into those premiums.
Because of that, the law does not give people a choice. This is an act of tyranny, and an especially insidious one because it remove the choice to healthcare options.
If the NHS was great, they wouldn't need to force people to pay into it.
Imagine the NHS were funded voluntarily. You can pay premiums, and receive the same services, or choose to go to a private company.
Would the NHS survive? No, it would be supplanted by a different corporation, because people would prefer to pay into those premiums.
Because of that, the law does not give people a choice. This is an act of tyranny, and an especially insidious one because it remove the choice to healthcare options.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 43 seconds later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,949
@1,278,947 (D)
> And this is coming from someone who is sympathetic-to-supportive of socialisation in many areas, medicine included.
That would make it expected and unsurprising.
> And this is coming from someone who is sympathetic-to-supportive of socialisation in many areas, medicine included.
That would make it expected and unsurprising.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 54 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,951
@1,278,948 (A)
Again, you pay more, with worse results, in the US. How can you justify that? Why would anyone voluntary choose that system?
Again, you pay more, with worse results, in the US. How can you justify that? Why would anyone voluntary choose that system?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,954
@previous (B)
We pay more because we receive more value. No one is forced to pay for services they don't want, but confidence in the system keeps people coming back.
You would voluntarily choose that system because it's the system that had voluntary interactions between patients and healthcare providers.
Why would anyone choose the NHS? They wouldn't, which is why the law forces you to pay into it, unlike the US system. If brits could change their provider from the NHS to any US provider, the NHS would collapse overnight as people switched.
We pay more because we receive more value. No one is forced to pay for services they don't want, but confidence in the system keeps people coming back.
You would voluntarily choose that system because it's the system that had voluntary interactions between patients and healthcare providers.
Why would anyone choose the NHS? They wouldn't, which is why the law forces you to pay into it, unlike the US system. If brits could change their provider from the NHS to any US provider, the NHS would collapse overnight as people switched.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 52 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,956
@1,278,946 (A)
> Why would you be in favor of forcing people to pay into a program, rather than letting those programs live or die on their own merit? Even if it worked fine once, why would you be in favor of removing the choice?
On a certain level, I agree with you completely. But I also believe that we all should have the right to live without the threat of physical violence, coercion, dying of preventable causes, and so on. How are we to make this a reality? Through laws. And it turns out laws tend to be pretty meaningless if they aren't backed by the threat of physical violence. There's a fundamental irony there. I get it. I don't know of a way out of it and I don't think there is one. It's an ethical dilemma. This is just where I chose to stand between two horrible options. I don't have a better answer than that.
Here's something I'd like your view on. I think I can guess your answer, but if I knew for certain, I wouldn't be asking: What do you think of emergency medical situations? How do you think the market or government or society should deal with that?
>
> There's a lot of experiences I had that were great for me, but I'd see a problem if it suddenly became forced on others.
> >
> > Amazing how almost every other product and tech-based industry has had costs drop orders of magnitude, while also having unthinkable levels of progress, yet the opposite has happened in medicine. Actually it's not really amazing at all. I just told you why it's happened. It's just amazing how discussions in general, everywhere, constantly get derailed into irrelevant side-discussions and tribalism so nothing ever productive happens.
>
> Marxian thought it the culprit, not freedom and choices.
I don't follow.
> Why would you be in favor of forcing people to pay into a program, rather than letting those programs live or die on their own merit? Even if it worked fine once, why would you be in favor of removing the choice?
On a certain level, I agree with you completely. But I also believe that we all should have the right to live without the threat of physical violence, coercion, dying of preventable causes, and so on. How are we to make this a reality? Through laws. And it turns out laws tend to be pretty meaningless if they aren't backed by the threat of physical violence. There's a fundamental irony there. I get it. I don't know of a way out of it and I don't think there is one. It's an ethical dilemma. This is just where I chose to stand between two horrible options. I don't have a better answer than that.
Here's something I'd like your view on. I think I can guess your answer, but if I knew for certain, I wouldn't be asking: What do you think of emergency medical situations? How do you think the market or government or society should deal with that?
>
> There's a lot of experiences I had that were great for me, but I'd see a problem if it suddenly became forced on others.
> >
> > Amazing how almost every other product and tech-based industry has had costs drop orders of magnitude, while also having unthinkable levels of progress, yet the opposite has happened in medicine. Actually it's not really amazing at all. I just told you why it's happened. It's just amazing how discussions in general, everywhere, constantly get derailed into irrelevant side-discussions and tribalism so nothing ever productive happens.
>
> Marxian thought it the culprit, not freedom and choices.
I don't follow.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,957
@1,278,954 (A)
No. you pay more because you have no choice. And you do not get value. Again, you have WORSE RESULTS than many other countries. And what good is "choice" when many people cannot afford healthcare access to begin with? And what keeps people "coming back" is being sick and not wanting to die. You get sick, you have to go to a doctor. You have no choice. THEY control the prices, not you, and not the magical "free market". Also, the British overall LOVE the NHS.
No. you pay more because you have no choice. And you do not get value. Again, you have WORSE RESULTS than many other countries. And what good is "choice" when many people cannot afford healthcare access to begin with? And what keeps people "coming back" is being sick and not wanting to die. You get sick, you have to go to a doctor. You have no choice. THEY control the prices, not you, and not the magical "free market". Also, the British overall LOVE the NHS.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,958
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,959
@1,278,956 (D)
> On a certain level, I agree with you completely. But I also believe that we all should have the right to live without the threat of physical violence, coercion, dying of preventable causes, and so on. How are we to make this a reality? Through laws. And it turns out laws tend to be pretty meaningless if they aren't backed by the threat of physical violence. There's a fundamental irony there. I get it. I don't know of a way out of it and I don't think there is one. It's an ethical dilemma. This is just where I chose to stand between two horrible options. I don't have a better answer than that.
Ok, so forcefully take money from people, and then allow the patient to choose a provider they trust. This is how US medicare works, the poor can get help from society and still choose a provider they trust.
> Here's something I'd like your view on. I think I can guess your answer, but if I knew for certain, I wouldn't be asking: What do you think of emergency medical situations? How do you think the market or government or society should deal with that?
Public funding is fine, they can reimburse a private company.
> On a certain level, I agree with you completely. But I also believe that we all should have the right to live without the threat of physical violence, coercion, dying of preventable causes, and so on. How are we to make this a reality? Through laws. And it turns out laws tend to be pretty meaningless if they aren't backed by the threat of physical violence. There's a fundamental irony there. I get it. I don't know of a way out of it and I don't think there is one. It's an ethical dilemma. This is just where I chose to stand between two horrible options. I don't have a better answer than that.
Ok, so forcefully take money from people, and then allow the patient to choose a provider they trust. This is how US medicare works, the poor can get help from society and still choose a provider they trust.
> Here's something I'd like your view on. I think I can guess your answer, but if I knew for certain, I wouldn't be asking: What do you think of emergency medical situations? How do you think the market or government or society should deal with that?
Public funding is fine, they can reimburse a private company.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,961
@1,278,957 (B)
> No. you pay more because you have no choice.
Wrong, people do it voluntarily. They could choose to spend less, but unlike their europoor counterparts, they know the money is going to be spent efficiently.
> And you do not get value. Again, you have WORSE RESULTS than many other countries.
Americans may have poorer health, but that's because we show up to work, which puts wear and tear on the body.
If I was a layabout eurotrash, voting "no" to increase taxes to a broken healthcare system, I might have better health but doing nothing all your life isn't good even if your blood pressure looks better on the stats and you live a few years longer.
> And what good is "choice" when many people cannot afford healthcare access to begin with?
This is a separate issue. Maybe society needs to fund healthcare more, and redistribute more to the bottom. OK, but even then, I do not want to force sick people into a state-created monopoly.
> And what keeps people "coming back" is being sick and not wanting to die. You get sick, you have to go to a doctor. You have no choice. THEY control the prices, not you, and not the magical "free market".
Go to a different doctor if yours is not being fair. There's not enough because of government rules, the same government you want taking more control.
> Also, the British overall LOVE the NHS.
It's the only option. If they loved it, why are healthcare monopolists like you afraid they could have a choice?
> No. you pay more because you have no choice.
Wrong, people do it voluntarily. They could choose to spend less, but unlike their europoor counterparts, they know the money is going to be spent efficiently.
> And you do not get value. Again, you have WORSE RESULTS than many other countries.
Americans may have poorer health, but that's because we show up to work, which puts wear and tear on the body.
If I was a layabout eurotrash, voting "no" to increase taxes to a broken healthcare system, I might have better health but doing nothing all your life isn't good even if your blood pressure looks better on the stats and you live a few years longer.
> And what good is "choice" when many people cannot afford healthcare access to begin with?
This is a separate issue. Maybe society needs to fund healthcare more, and redistribute more to the bottom. OK, but even then, I do not want to force sick people into a state-created monopoly.
> And what keeps people "coming back" is being sick and not wanting to die. You get sick, you have to go to a doctor. You have no choice. THEY control the prices, not you, and not the magical "free market".
Go to a different doctor if yours is not being fair. There's not enough because of government rules, the same government you want taking more control.
> Also, the British overall LOVE the NHS.
It's the only option. If they loved it, why are healthcare monopolists like you afraid they could have a choice?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,965
@previous (A)
How can an American "choose to pay less" for health insurance? They have a set price. Second, you have poorer health results from medicine. In other words, by poor results, I mean healthcare results, not lifestyle results. Third, doctors set their prices. It is not a free market. Doctors and insurance set healthcare prices, and you cannot influence it in any way. Fourth, the British already CAN get private health insurance. It is available. Most choose not to for the reasons I stated.
How can an American "choose to pay less" for health insurance? They have a set price. Second, you have poorer health results from medicine. In other words, by poor results, I mean healthcare results, not lifestyle results. Third, doctors set their prices. It is not a free market. Doctors and insurance set healthcare prices, and you cannot influence it in any way. Fourth, the British already CAN get private health insurance. It is available. Most choose not to for the reasons I stated.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,966
@previous (B)
> How can an American "choose to pay less" for health insurance? They have a set price.
There are many options in the healthcare marketplace, bronze is the cheap plans, up to the top tier of platinum for the most expensive.
> Second, you have poorer health results from medicine.
We have the most advanced healthcare research, which is why most healthcare tech comes from the US. The first patients to get breaking treatments are here.
Many citizens have health problems you won't see in socialized despotic states because americans have a reason to go to work, which wears down the body. if socialism were implemented, the first sign would be a younger generation with no exposure to the side-effects of productive work, which would look good isolated from the broader societal consequences that leads to.
> Third, doctors set their prices
The marketplace sets prices. Insurance groups have the leverage to demand lower prices, or the doctor risks losing the members as clients.
> It is not a free market.
In some ways yes, the supply of medical professionals and devices is restricted by a bloated government bureaucracy. More freedom is the answer, not less.
Second, you have poorer health results from medicine. In other words, by poor results, I mean healthcare results, not lifestyle results. Third, doctors set their prices. It is not a free market. Doctors and insurance set healthcare prices, and you cannot influence it in any way. Fourth, the British already CAN get private health insurance. It is available. Most choose not to for the reasons I stated.
> Fourth, the British already CAN get private health insurance. It is available. Most choose not to for the reasons I stated.
You completely ignored that I addressed this already.
You would have to pay a second time to get private health insurance. That pressures almost everyone into taking subpar care, since they were forced to pay for it anyway. People should have the freedom to take the money the NHS would waste, and put it into a private insurance plan.
> How can an American "choose to pay less" for health insurance? They have a set price.
There are many options in the healthcare marketplace, bronze is the cheap plans, up to the top tier of platinum for the most expensive.
> Second, you have poorer health results from medicine.
We have the most advanced healthcare research, which is why most healthcare tech comes from the US. The first patients to get breaking treatments are here.
Many citizens have health problems you won't see in socialized despotic states because americans have a reason to go to work, which wears down the body. if socialism were implemented, the first sign would be a younger generation with no exposure to the side-effects of productive work, which would look good isolated from the broader societal consequences that leads to.
> Third, doctors set their prices
The marketplace sets prices. Insurance groups have the leverage to demand lower prices, or the doctor risks losing the members as clients.
> It is not a free market.
In some ways yes, the supply of medical professionals and devices is restricted by a bloated government bureaucracy. More freedom is the answer, not less.
Second, you have poorer health results from medicine. In other words, by poor results, I mean healthcare results, not lifestyle results. Third, doctors set their prices. It is not a free market. Doctors and insurance set healthcare prices, and you cannot influence it in any way. Fourth, the British already CAN get private health insurance. It is available. Most choose not to for the reasons I stated.
> Fourth, the British already CAN get private health insurance. It is available. Most choose not to for the reasons I stated.
You completely ignored that I addressed this already.
You would have to pay a second time to get private health insurance. That pressures almost everyone into taking subpar care, since they were forced to pay for it anyway. People should have the freedom to take the money the NHS would waste, and put it into a private insurance plan.
(Edited 7 minutes later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,967
@1,278,959 (A)
> > On a certain level, I agree with you completely. But I also believe that we all should have the right to live without the threat of physical violence, coercion, dying of preventable causes, and so on. How are we to make this a reality? Through laws. And it turns out laws tend to be pretty meaningless if they aren't backed by the threat of physical violence. There's a fundamental irony there. I get it. I don't know of a way out of it and I don't think there is one. It's an ethical dilemma. This is just where I chose to stand between two horrible options. I don't have a better answer than that.
>
> Ok, so forcefully take money from people, and then allow the patient to choose a provider they trust. This is how US medicare works, the poor can get help from society and still choose a provider they trust.
>
> > Here's something I'd like your view on. I think I can guess your answer, but if I knew for certain, I wouldn't be asking: What do you think of emergency medical situations? How do you think the market or government or society should deal with that?
>
> Public funding is fine, they can reimburse a private company.
Sounds like we are broadly in agreement.
I would've thought, for emergency situations, you would've proposed coverage be extended through private companies through existent privately arranged contracts agreed on beforehand.
I think public reimbursement is better in a practical sense, maybe not a moral one, but I think we need to have an element, just an element, of practicality in all things to actually be moral, if you get what I'm saying.
> > On a certain level, I agree with you completely. But I also believe that we all should have the right to live without the threat of physical violence, coercion, dying of preventable causes, and so on. How are we to make this a reality? Through laws. And it turns out laws tend to be pretty meaningless if they aren't backed by the threat of physical violence. There's a fundamental irony there. I get it. I don't know of a way out of it and I don't think there is one. It's an ethical dilemma. This is just where I chose to stand between two horrible options. I don't have a better answer than that.
>
> Ok, so forcefully take money from people, and then allow the patient to choose a provider they trust. This is how US medicare works, the poor can get help from society and still choose a provider they trust.
>
> > Here's something I'd like your view on. I think I can guess your answer, but if I knew for certain, I wouldn't be asking: What do you think of emergency medical situations? How do you think the market or government or society should deal with that?
>
> Public funding is fine, they can reimburse a private company.
Sounds like we are broadly in agreement.
I would've thought, for emergency situations, you would've proposed coverage be extended through private companies through existent privately arranged contracts agreed on beforehand.
I think public reimbursement is better in a practical sense, maybe not a moral one, but I think we need to have an element, just an element, of practicality in all things to actually be moral, if you get what I'm saying.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,968
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,971
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,972
@previous (D)
Choice is bullshit if poor people have no access to it. The only people in the US with "choice" are (1) wealthy people and (2) people with cush jobs that provide the finest insurance.
Choice is bullshit if poor people have no access to it. The only people in the US with "choice" are (1) wealthy people and (2) people with cush jobs that provide the finest insurance.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,973
@previous (B)
You sound like:
(1) you spew a lot of talking points
(2) you don't spend much time thinking about things
(3) you don't spend any time reading what's already been said in this thread
You sound like:
(1) you spew a lot of talking points
(2) you don't spend much time thinking about things
(3) you don't spend any time reading what's already been said in this thread
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,976
@1,278,972 (B)
We've already been over this, there are ways to help the poor financially without removing their choice.
Healthcare monopolists use this assumption a lot, that their system is the only one that allows for supporting the needy. It's not, and there are examples of systems with both choice and charity.
We've already been over this, there are ways to help the poor financially without removing their choice.
Healthcare monopolists use this assumption a lot, that their system is the only one that allows for supporting the needy. It's not, and there are examples of systems with both choice and charity.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,977
Anonymous B double-posted this 2 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,978
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,979
@previous (B)
I'm in favor of taxes to support those that need healthcare but cannot afford it.
If they have choice, I wouldn't call it socialized.
I'm in favor of taxes to support those that need healthcare but cannot afford it.
If they have choice, I wouldn't call it socialized.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,980
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,981
@previous (B)
Medicare would fall under this, but alternatively you give them an HSA/FSA card if they fall under a certain income.
Medicare would fall under this, but alternatively you give them an HSA/FSA card if they fall under a certain income.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 13 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,983
Anonymous D double-posted this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,984
@1,278,979 (A)
> If they have choice, I wouldn't call it socialized.
You're free to call it whatever you want, but a lot of people would call that socialized.
> If they have choice, I wouldn't call it socialized.
You're free to call it whatever you want, but a lot of people would call that socialized.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 8 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,989
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,991
@previous (A)
Do you believe the same for UBI? Sounds like a freer option than doling out and micro-managing how people spend their money. Spend this much and no more on health care. Spend this much and no more on milk. And on and on.
Do you believe the same for UBI? Sounds like a freer option than doling out and micro-managing how people spend their money. Spend this much and no more on health care. Spend this much and no more on milk. And on and on.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,993
@previous (D)
Yes, it cuts down on bureaucracy and allows people to use their own understanding of their situation to make better spending choices.
Yes, it cuts down on bureaucracy and allows people to use their own understanding of their situation to make better spending choices.
Anonymous D replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,278,994
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,407
Delete insurance companies
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 46 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,439
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 37 seconds later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,441
@previous (A)
Yes. Correct. It is much better. The state is non-profit. The insurance companies are 100% profit driven over human health
Yes. Correct. It is much better. The state is non-profit. The insurance companies are 100% profit driven over human health
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,447
@previous (B)
> The state is non-profit.
Salaries can corrupt just as easily as dividends.
Even if this aspect did ensure people hate the right motives, people make bad decisions for well intended reasons all the time.
> The insurance companies are 100% profit driven over human health
They are profit driven.
If the consumers are there to get better health, then attracting the consumers means you have to convince them you are going to take care of their health.
A selfish person or organization is motivated by the system to care about the health of others, when they wouldn't normally, because that's how you increase profits.
> The state is non-profit.
Salaries can corrupt just as easily as dividends.
Even if this aspect did ensure people hate the right motives, people make bad decisions for well intended reasons all the time.
> The insurance companies are 100% profit driven over human health
They are profit driven.
If the consumers are there to get better health, then attracting the consumers means you have to convince them you are going to take care of their health.
A selfish person or organization is motivated by the system to care about the health of others, when they wouldn't normally, because that's how you increase profits.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,448
@previous (A)
The state is an organization. It has no motive to act on profit. It provides services funded by taxes. It does not try to make money on its programs. As for the insurance companies, the only way they make money is to deny claims. They literally do not care about human health.
The state is an organization. It has no motive to act on profit. It provides services funded by taxes. It does not try to make money on its programs. As for the insurance companies, the only way they make money is to deny claims. They literally do not care about human health.
Anonymous E replied with this 2 years ago, 17 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,451
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,280,467
@1,280,448 (B)
> The state is an organization. It has no motive to act on profit.
For-profit organizations are also organizations.
The state has many reasons to be motivated against the patient. There are a lot of people involved, who would like the money to be spent in one way over another.
> It provides services funded by taxes. It does not try to make money on its programs.
We've established this.
> As for the insurance companies, the only way they make money is to deny claims.
That's not true, there's a lot of ways to do it. Keeping the organization efficient is one way, changing what is covered, what the premiums are, managing risk, increasing their scale, and many other ways allow them to make more money.
> They literally do not care about human health.
They have to, if they want to succeed. That motivation is in pursuit of profit, but it's better than the many parts of the state that have no reason to care, because they get paid whether you're satisfied or not.
> The state is an organization. It has no motive to act on profit.
For-profit organizations are also organizations.
The state has many reasons to be motivated against the patient. There are a lot of people involved, who would like the money to be spent in one way over another.
> It provides services funded by taxes. It does not try to make money on its programs.
We've established this.
> As for the insurance companies, the only way they make money is to deny claims.
That's not true, there's a lot of ways to do it. Keeping the organization efficient is one way, changing what is covered, what the premiums are, managing risk, increasing their scale, and many other ways allow them to make more money.
> They literally do not care about human health.
They have to, if they want to succeed. That motivation is in pursuit of profit, but it's better than the many parts of the state that have no reason to care, because they get paid whether you're satisfied or not.