Do you support universal health care? Why or why not?

[Witchblade77]

its sweet that you all think that drastically changing the laws in this country is not as difficult as I think it is. given our history... given how some people are still surprised that Trump won at all and the only reason they can think of is racism (its not the only reason, its the reason for some, but NOT for half the country)

on triage. I cannot be triaged if i cannot get in to be seen in a first place. if there is a wait list for an appointment, I'm not getting in beforehand. currently, my one recourse if something worsens is emergency room. not every change in condition is WORTH going to emergency room. so its a catch 22. do you go to an emergency room for non emergency. do you wait until it becomes an emergency?

on infrastructure. I have a feeling that a lot of you live in larger cities. places that do have more infrastructure and because there are more people in smaller space - you end up with more choices. I missed that thing from Endus yesterday, where he just changed his doctor. I. don't have. that option. if I want to stay covered. that doctor? is it.

interesting thing about Canada (and UK for that matter) is that they still have private insurance and private doctors along with government run systems. so you CAN in fact go ahead of the line by paying cash up front. if you can afford it. this is not me praising the system. this is me reminding you all that your experience in a city is not the same as someone else who is not. again, from my research, the quality and acess to healthcare in Canada varies quite a bit, depending on a province and even which part of the province. now take that and apply it to US and its going to be much worse, because YES our infrastructure in some areas is worse then a third world country. take high speed internet and its availability and costs and how much they vary depending on locations. and internet is a small thing compared to healthcare.

and I mean... guy like above? is not special, unique or uncommon. a LOT of people believe that way. now go ahead, try to convince them to vote otherwise, to act otherwise. still think its going to be easy to pass those sweeping laws.

I. WANT. universal healthcare. I actualy grew up with one, and I did NOT and still do not enjoy the uncertainty, or outright dread of living with the system we have right now. what I do NOT believe is that it can be accomplished in this country in a way that you all think it can be, or as quickly as you all think it can be. this country needs major changes AND consistent leadership at all levels of the government - not just in oval office - for longer then 4, or even 8 years, to not only make the changes, but make those changes STICK. and that's not going to happen until you stop looking at everyone not voting the way you do an instead of trying to figure out why or what would convince them to change their stance, you just dismiss them as racists. (and yeah, sure, some are. some. not even remotely all)

[Endus]

You're getting definitions confused. Empathy does not imply action. I'm perfectly capable of understanding, feeling, and realizing why someone feels the way that they do and sharing in those feelings. That doesn't mean I feel the least bit of compulsion to do anything about it. I don't always try to "fix" whatever it is that makes me feel sad or angry or whatever negative emotion it is because I'm not dumb enough to think that, just because I'm feeling something negative or suffering myself means the world needs to stop turning or things need to be done. Maybe compassion is more like what you're talking about? But even then, I don't lack all compassion, either. Just some universally automatically applied version of it.

If you have the capacity to help, and know that one needs help, and choose not to help, you lack empathy.

You're the guy watching a puppy drown in still water, because you don't want to get your clothes wet because they might wrinkle.

That's Patrick Bateman type thinking. Not normal human emotion.

- - - Updated - - -

interesting thing about Canada (and UK for that matter) is that they still have private insurance and private doctors along with government run systems. so you CAN in fact go ahead of the line by paying cash up front. if you can afford it.

This is largely not the case.

Private insurance covers incidentals. Private rooms, some additional coverage for prescriptions (which are already far cheaper to begin with), other such things that aren't medical necessities, just comforts.

And private doctors, in the sense you mean, basically do not exist. There are things like private MRI clinics, where you can pay for an MRI out of pocket if you don't want to wait for one, but we're necessarily talking about cases where there's little medical urgency for that MRI in the first place.

again, from my research, the quality and acess to healthcare in Canada varies quite a bit, depending on a province and even which part of the province.

Because Canada is geographically fuckin huge, and populations are often remote, and small. Which limits how practical complex medical facilities are.

I've made use of medical facilities in 4 separate provinces, many of them smaller provinces, and the quality of care was just fine.

now take that and apply it to US and its going to be much worse, because YES our infrastructure in some areas is worse then a third world country.

Given that the USA is much more densely populated than Canada, the reverse is true. You should've paid more attention to why those issues exist, in Canada. Here's a hint; we're slightly larger in land area than the USA, with a tenth of the population.

[BeepBoo]

If you have the capacity to help, and know that one needs help, and choose not to help, you lack empathy.

Sorry, you don't get to redefine things. Empathy has dick-all to do with action surrounding feelings. Sorry you can't separate the two concepts, but it doesn't matter, nor does it change what empathy actually is.

You're the guy watching a puppy drown in still water, because you don't want to get your clothes wet because they might wrinkle.

Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't do, because you don't know me at all. And don't get the concepts of what I want government to do or compel its citizens to do for what I personally would do confused or crossed. The two could not be farther from each other. I'm not some narcissist who thinks everyone should have to live the way I do because clearly I'm the best.

In your example, 10/10 times I'd be hopping in that water to save that puppy. Now, would I ever want law written to mandate people must help the puppy? Nope. Even though I do it every time. Even though it would be sad for the puppy to die. Even though, without that law, maybe the chance of the puppy being left to drown goes up.

Still would never support a law mandating action of others on behalf of the poor puppy.

[Felya]

Sorry, you don't get to redefine things. Empathy has dick-all to do with action surrounding feelings. Sorry you can't separate the two concepts, but it doesn't matter, nor does it change what empathy actually is.

This is curb your enthusiasm worthy...

empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't do, because you don't know me at all. And don't get the concepts of what I want government to do or compel its citizens to do for what I personally would do confused or crossed. The two could not be farther from each other. I'm not some narcissist who thinks everyone should have to live the way I do because clearly I'm the best.

Can you list the opinions you have that you know are flawed?

Edit: May I suggest your opinion on universal coverage, being one of the things you know isn’t best, but push it anyway?

In your example, 10/10 times I'd be hopping in that water to save that puppy. Now, would I ever want law written to mandate people must help the puppy? Nope. Even though I do it every time. Even though it would be sad for the puppy to die. Even though, without that law, maybe the chance of the puppy being left to drown goes up.

This would work, if paying insurance companies, was equivalent to not saving the puppy. While paying directly to healthcare administrators through the government, is saving puppies.

FYI: Your argument is to save the puppy... It’s just named Insurance Companies, instead of American People.

Still would never support a law mandating action of others on behalf of the poor puppy.

Then why do you demand that healthcare be filtered through the insurance company puppy?

[Kathandira]

Oppose paying them? Nah. Choose your words more carefully. I oppose MANDATORY taxes on principle, sure. Would I still pay them even if I wasn't forced to? Yes.

In addition, I'm not for outright anarchy, so while my little arbitrary line in the sand for "how much should be mandatory" is non-zero, just go forward understanding that my general guideline is "unless absolutely necessary for society to even be able to exist." I'm not convinced caring for everyone in society is actually necessary. As exemplified by the fact that we're still here.

Hard to argue that as we obviously have survived as a society through the worst of greed. By that I mean to say, we are way better off today than we were in the worst of times. I would think a good portion of that is due to compassion for those in need. We have many programs to assist the less fortunate, and those programs came from a place of progress.

I am in the progress camp and believe we shouldn't leave well enough alone though. I think a universal health care system is not only possible, but should continue to be strived for. If we can do it without a dire impact on the nation, I don't see a reason not to.

[Endus]

Sorry, you don't get to redefine things. Empathy has dick-all to do with action surrounding feelings. Sorry you can't separate the two concepts, but it doesn't matter, nor does it change what empathy actually is.

Again, if you have the capacity to help, and can understand that they need help, and choose not to help, that's a lack of empathy. Definitively. No redefinition of terms.

Don't tell me what I would and wouldn't do, because you don't know me at all.

I can only go by what you choose to post.

And by what you choose to post, I don't see how that was inaccurate.

And don't get the concepts of what I want government to do or compel its citizens to do for what I personally would do confused or crossed. The two could not be farther from each other. I'm not some narcissist who thinks everyone should have to live the way I do because clearly I'm the best.

In your example, 10/10 times I'd be hopping in that water to save that puppy. Now, would I ever want law written to mandate people must help the puppy? Nope. Even though I do it every time. Even though it would be sad for the puppy to die. Even though, without that law, maybe the chance of the puppy being left to drown goes up.

Still would never support a law mandating action of others on behalf of the poor puppy.

Nobody's asking you to scrub up for life-saving surgery, or trying to force you into medical training to be prepared for that possibility.

Your counterpoint here is ridiculous and has no bearing on the issue.

[BeepBoo]

This is curb your enthusiasm worthy...

empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

Where in there does it say "Takes action to help someone because you feel bad for them?" Nowhere. Again, I can understand and feel the way someone does without wanting to do anything about it.

Then why do you demand that healthcare be filtered through the insurance company puppy?

Because insurance isn't (or shouldn't be) mandatory. Insurance should work like the personal coverage portion of comprehensive car insurance, like it did before the ACA.

[Kathandira]

Where in there does it say "Takes action to help someone because you feel bad for them?" Nowhere. Again, I can understand and feel the way someone does without wanting to do anything about it.

If empathy required action, there would a lot less chatter here, and a lot more posters flying around the world to help people in disasters, and poverty.

[BeepBoo]

Again, if you have the capacity to help, and can understand that they need help, and choose not to help, that's a lack of empathy. Definitively. No redefinition of terms.

Someone linked the definition of empathy above. 404: compulsion of action not found. Only "can you feel and understand why the feel?"

And by what you choose to post, I don't see how that was inaccurate.

That would be because you continually refuse to ask me what I would do and constantly talk about HOW I WANT GOVERNMENT TO WORK. The two are completely unrelated to each other. I'm not gay. Ergo, I hate buttsex. However, that doesn't mean I want the government interfering and enforcing my view on other people, making buttsex illegal. I want people to be as free as possible, and that necessarily includes freedom to be what I consider an asshole.

Your counterpoint here is ridiculous and has no bearing on the issue.

It's not. You're compelling participation. Take your puppy example and either make it a situation where more than one person needs to help... or something. Did you mandate that I fund the rope someone used to lasso the puppy? Congratulations, you mandated I help the puppy instead of leaving it solely to me to decide if I want to participate ___at all___ in the situation.

[Endus]

Someone linked the definition of empathy above. 404: compulsion of action not found. Only "can you feel and understand why the feel?"

Refusing to take the modicum of action indicates you don't feel anything.

That was literally the point of the drowning puppy analogy.

It's not. You're compelling participation. Take your puppy example and either make it a situation where more than one person needs to help... or something. Did you mandate that I fund the rope someone used to lasso the puppy? Congratulations, you mandated I help the puppy instead of leaving it solely to me to decide if I want to participate ___at all___ in the situation.

What you call "compelling participation", everyone else calls "participating in a society". There are duties and obligations to citizenship, not just benefits.

It's a fundamentally ridiculous point of view. You want all the benefits you gain, but none of the duties and obligations. That's now how society works.

[BeepBoo]

Refusing to take the modicum of action indicates you don't feel anything.

Absolutely untrue.

everyone else calls "participating in a society". There are duties and obligations to citizenship, not just benefits.

Mhmm. We seem to be doing just fine without a duty and obligation to take care of our weakest people. I'll elect to keep it that way.

[Kathandira]

Mhmm. We seem to be doing just fine without a duty and obligation to take care of our weakest people.

Who is "we"? Because those weakest people likely don't agree.

Perhaps that is where the divide splits. How different people define, "we".

[AeneasBK]

Unless the government is allowed to more intrusively control peoples diets and lifestyles I think that free healthcare is a waste of money.

[Kathandira]

Unless the government is allowed to more intrusively control people's diets and lifestyles I think that free healthcare is a waste of money.

Perhaps it could actually help prevent people from having unhealthy diets and lifestyles.

[Endus]

Absolutely untrue.

If you're standing there watching that puppy drown, saying "why should I save the puppy?", then yes. You lack empathy, and don't really feel anything for the puppy.

Getting upset about what words mean is ridiculous.

Mhmm. We seem to be doing just fine without a duty and obligation to take care of our weakest people. I'll elect to keep it that way.

The USA isn't doing "fine" by a whole wide range of metrics. Including health care.

[shimerra]

Unless the government is allowed to more intrusively control peoples diets and lifestyles I think that free healthcare is a waste of money.

That's a pretty dumb thought. Even without changing health habits of the people universal health care would reduce costs and improve care for the majority of the population. The only difference, besides better/cheaper care, would be you'd pay less in taxes than you did from your employer withholding funds/paying you less to pay for your insurance even keeping our fat lazy selves the same. The waste of money is what we're doing now, not a universal system.

All changing healthy habits would do is further increase the savings of a Universal system. But changing healthy habits under the current system we have now would still leave a lot of people fucked because they still can't afford care when they needed it. Diet and exercise help reduce your chances of needing to go to the doctor, but they sure as fuck don't come close to eliminating it.

And I don't care how much you diet or exercise if you get in a car accident between jobs and you can't afford COBRA or paying for your own you're fucked no matter how many miles you ran that day. Delaying care because you can't afford it also causes major economic losses when the diabetic who just could've got insulin had we had a universal/free system now has to have his foot lopped off.


edit- and as someone else added but I forgot to that system could help encourage healthier habits.

[AeneasBK]

Perhaps it could actually help prevent people from having unhealthy diets and lifestyles.

I'd put that on the education side of spending not the healthcare side; but fair point.

[Kathandira]

I'd put that on the education side of spending not the healthcare side; but fair point.

And I think you are correct as well. It really does fall under education. Which coincidentally are two areas our country could use a lot of improvement.

[AeneasBK]

That's a pretty dumb thought.

Fair enough. Wasn't trying to particularly promote the current USA system as being good. I'm from the UK and it's how I feel about the NHS, it's a big waste of money that could be better spent on schools and education. I've waxed on the topic before here and can't really be arsed to go into it more I'll just accept other people think "it's pretty dumb".

It's mostly because I went to public school and also to my local state school and was made painfully aware of the dearth of opportunity* offered state students (and I was attending a well rated state school at that). If we took the 200b we waste keeping fat smokers and pensioners alive another year and spent it on kids education we'd have a utopia in a few generations.

But I guess we better keep 90 year olds alive on life support instead. Go figure.

*Disregarding the Old Boys network type of opportunities.

[Kathandira]

Fair enough. Wasn't trying to particularly promote the current USA system as being good. I'm from the UK and it's how I feel about the NHS, it's a big waste of money that could be better spent on schools and education. I've waxed on the topic before here and can't really be arsed to go into it more I'll just accept other people think "it's pretty dumb".

It's mostly because I went to public school and also to my local state school and was made painfully aware of the dearth of opportunity* offered state students (and I was attending a well rated state school at that). If we took the 200b we waste keeping fat smokers and pensioners alive another year and spent it on kids education we'd have a utopia in a few generations.

But I guess we better keep 90 year olds alive on life support instead. Go figure.

*Disregarding the Old Boys network type of opportunities.

Justs as the case in the US, the UK should be able to provide a better quality of both Health and Education. in the US, our issues are at the state level when it comes to education. There is way too much financial waste, and too little financial support makes its way to the students and teachers. I don't know anything about the financial support of education in the UK, but i'd expect that the money exists, it is just being mishandled and wasted.