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

[BeepBoo]

I would not count that as impressive but rather barbaric.

Which part? Getting more done with less resources?

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...are-countries/

or are you talking about skipping the line if you're actually more valuable to society? I fail to see why we shouldn't be prioritizing our higher achieving members over our lower ones that do nothing more than something a robot can feasibly do. Those aren't the people who actually solve problems. They're people that exist solely to support those who do, and that's only because it's currently easier/cheaper than having a robot. However, I've seen a lot of LCD order screens recently in an increasing number of places, so there's obviously a shift coming.

If that’s even true, it’s because wait times don’t factor people who don’t have insurance, not getting care at all.

I fail to see a problem here. So you're saying our wait times would be worse if our infrastructure was suddenly barraged with all of these supposed would-be visits and make our wait times horribly long? Or do you think going to universal health care will suddenly give us a lot more healthcare resources?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...mes-by-country

[Darsithis]

Absolutely, and I struggle to understand why anyone wouldn't.

Anything less than universal healthcare is rationing the sick and weak, saying they're not important enough to society to be worth caring for. Our worth as a society, in my opinion, is based on how we take care of each other, not how we cast them off and focus on ourselves.

[Felya]

I fail to see a problem here.

You fail to see a problem with not getting care, but you see a problem with wait times? The only thing I need you to explain, is why wiat times is a problem, when it’s solved by simply waiting so long that you no longer “need” care?

Nonsense... what a meaningless ideology.

[Endus]

No, it's a really bad idea as are all mandatory/guaranteed income systems riddled with bureaucracy.

The result would be long wait times, bad quality healthcare and you'd get refused experimental treatment or have to pay for for rare things anyway. Also it would really hurt progress don't really have a good incentive to come up with new treatments and improvements if they get guaranteed income.

Basically it's the same as with public schools now. Compared to most private schools, they are horrible.

Literally none of this is true.

Looking at basically any country with universal health care, wait times aren't significantly worse than the USA, the quality of care is generally better overall, and you're perfectly entitled to experimental treatments if your doctors and the medical system agree that's what would be best.

Mandating those who make money and actually contribute to society in increasingly meaningful and non-mundane ways take care of someone they don't know/can't judge for themselves/don't care about... like basically every form of social safety net. Stop making the able bodied carry the weak and the incapable more than they willingly want to.

The idea that personal wealth is in any way a measure of the value of a human life is astonishingly insipid.

By your argument, Van Gogh was a complete failure of a human being. It's completely ridiculous. The principles you're using here aren't just wrong, they're aggressively lacking in basic human empathy.

You may be Patrick Bateman, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

Wait time is only part of the puzzle. The US is among the shortest wait times already as-is when you look at our average times. Take into account the fact that we have fewer doctors per capita than most of those countries and it looks even more impressive. In addition, you're ignoring probably the best part of our type of health care system: the ability to skip the line by throwing more money at the problem. You can't do that in other countries nearly as easily.

Why would that ever be considered a "good thing"? You're prioritizing health care based on who's richest, not on who needs it.

Also, wait times are easy to reduce when your insurance industry is predicated on denial of care for profit, and thus a lot of patients are flatly denied access to the wait list entirely. Once you include those whose effective wait time is "forever", the American system fails spectacularly.

[Felya]

On Van Gogh as a failure... with one of the best lines ever in film... “you have to be very careful, you might be staring at Van Gogh’s ear”:



Just sayin’...

[Specialka]

Which part? Getting more done with less resources?

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...are-countries/

or are you talking about skipping the line if you're actually more valuable to society? I fail to see why we shouldn't be prioritizing our higher achieving members over our lower ones that do nothing more than something a robot can feasibly do. Those aren't the people who actually solve problems. They're people that exist solely to support those who do, and that's only because it's currently easier/cheaper than having a robot. However, I've seen a lot of LCD order screens recently in an increasing number of places, so there's obviously a shift coming.


I fail to see a problem here. So you're saying our wait times would be worse if our infrastructure was suddenly barraged with all of these supposed would-be visits and make our wait times horribly long? Or do you think going to universal health care will suddenly give us a lot more healthcare resources?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...mes-by-country

You are far from doing better or as better as you make it out to be than comparable countries.

Mine, France, does as same or even better than yours while our healthcare is mostly free (since it is paid with our taxes).

And I was mostly talking about paying to skip the line. You do realize that those that have money or earn a lot are not always the most valuable member of our society.

You seem to earn a lot of money but I would not count you as valuable.

[I Push Buttons]

I support the slow transition of the US to a single payer system; first by allowing the government to enter the health insurance market with a public option (Medicaid buy-in for anyone any everyone), then the slow transition to Medicaid-For-All. I say Medicaid-For-All because I am tired of 'Medicare-For-All'... Medicare is shit and still leaves people with huge out of pocket expenses, no one should want it, everyone should want Medicaid, which has little to no out-of-pocket costs for the people on it. It would also help to destigmatize Medicaid, which has a stigma attached since it is considered 'welfare' (IE: for poor people).

I don't understand how anyone informed on the topic can object to single payer.

[Greyvax]

There are too many questions that need to be answered to get folks on board with this:

1. What happens to my employee healthcare benefit? do I receive it or does it get rolled into company's coffers.
2. How much will my taxes rise?
3. How much will my out of pocket pay change? (probably similar to #2)
4. Will the quality of care change?
5. Will the wait times for quality care be significant?
6. What will actually be covered? (this is a problem with current healthcare system)

There are about a million ideas for universal healthcare currently, and it'll take years to condense that into one to be voted on. Currently the most popular among progressives is "free healthcare for everyone and make the rich pay for it (rich includes middle class)"

[Inuyaki]

It's a dumb topic though because probably 95% of tax payers are fine with public roads which means at most 5% of people don't consent on that topic. Where as with universal healthcare perhaps only 40% of Americans who pay any significant amount of taxes consent to it which means the level of coercion is vastly higher. It's simply not a very good comparison.

Because there is no propaganda against public roads...
The numbers are just different because you have so many idiots that fall for the propaganda of the rich.

[BeepBoo]

the quality of care is generally better overall

Gonna need some evidence for this one.

The idea that personal wealth is in any way a measure of the value of a human life is astonishingly insipid.

It's a measure of what that person has done for society and how much that society likes what they've done essentially. So, it might not be "value" outright, but it is a t least a pretty good measure of "value to the society the person got it from."

By your argument, Van Gogh was a complete failure of a human being. It's completely ridiculous. The principles you're using here aren't just wrong, they're aggressively lacking in basic human empathy.

Lol. Why is Van Gogh suddenly something more than just an artist who cut his own ear off and had a unique style of painting that was only popularized after his death? What exactly did he do to help make peoples' lives better when he was alive? Did he invent some contraption like the steam engine? Did he produce enough food to feed 100 people?

Why would that ever be considered a "good thing"? You're prioritizing health care based on who's richest, not on who needs it.

Ignoring the fact that you can simultaneously need care and have more money... It's not like Someone anyone is getting chemo as an elective procedure.

Also, wait times are easy to reduce when your insurance industry is predicated on denial of care for profit

Gonna need some form of evidence that this is a regularly occurring thing that would influence rates in any meaningful way the way you insinuate as well.

[Specialka]

Gonna need some evidence for this one.


It's a measure of what that person has done for society and how much that society likes what they've done essentially. So, it might not be "value" outright, but it is a t least a pretty good measure of "value to the society the person got it from."


Lol. Why is Van Gogh suddenly something more than just an artist who cut his own ear off and had a unique style of painting that was only popularized after his death? What exactly did he do to help make peoples' lives better when he was alive? Did he invent some contraption like the steam engine? Did he produce enough food to feed 100 people?


Ignoring the fact that you can simultaneously need care and have more money... It's not like Someone anyone is getting chemo as an elective procedure.



Gonna need some form of evidence that this is a regularly occurring thing that would influence rates in any meaningful way the way you insinuate as well.

What about people that inherit from their family ? They are rich yet they did nothing. Are they valuable for the society ?

[Dread Pirate Phayde]

Honestly when I was younger, and far more ignorant, I didn't think so. I was fortunate enough to have a decent plan through my employer, so I was very out of touch, but as time went on, the plan got worse, but the cost went up, seeing how fucked up the healthcare system is, and how its rigged against the individual, I changed my view. ER visit cost $25k, with insurance I paid $200, the hospital settled for $2500 from the insurance provider. Fast forward a few years later, I had no insurance, ended up with another $25k bill, they expected me to pay the entire amount, they weren't willing to afford me the option of paying only 10%.

I'm fortunate enough to be covered again, and I'm finally being treated for a health issue I've had for over 20 years (ignored by previous drs, then no coverage). No one should be faced with neglecting their health to avoid being forced into bankruptcy. Looking at the absolute waste in spending our government regularly engages in, we should divert a lot of it to getting everyone covered. Billions to other countries, so they act like our friends to our face, doing who knows what behind our backs. A ridiculous military budget quickly approaching a trillion dollars. Of course most in charge only care every 2 or 4 years, and then promptly forget once they win re-election.

[Endus]

There are too many questions that need to be answered to get folks on board with this:

1. What happens to my employee healthcare benefit? do I receive it or does it get rolled into company's coffers.

This is something you should take up with your employer. If they're ethical, you'll get a bump in pay commensurate with how much the medical coverage cost (or the difference between that and the new one, which covers incidentals and upgrades and such rather than the care itself).

Capitalism doesn't encourage ethical stewardship, though, so it's more likely they'll try and fuck you over and pray you're too stupid/ignorant/afraid of job loss to complain about it. But that's an issue with capitalist profiteering, not a universal health care system. I have other answers for this, but it's a completely separate topic, basically.

2. How much will my taxes rise?

The USA spends more per capita in public funds on healthcare than any other developed nation, not even counting private insurance. This is almost entirely because the system has allowed prices to balloon, for no reason but naked profiteering.

That'll end, and prices will stabilize, and your tax bill will either remain the same or drop slightly, in the long run (the first few years may be more heavy, due to the healthcare economy adjusting and such, but that's short-term).

3. How much will my out of pocket pay change? (probably similar to #2)

How much you pay to the hospital/clinic, you mean?

It gets zeroed out, mostly.

4. Will the quality of care change?

Not in any appreciable sense, no. Why would it? In fact, you're just going to see increase in quality, for a whole lot of people whose quality of care was previously "none".

5. Will the wait times for quality care be significant?

Not appreciably compared to current wait times. The USA doesn't even have the shortest wait times in the developed world.

6. What will actually be covered? (this is a problem with current healthcare system)

The standard for universal health care systems is that it's all based on triage and medical necessity. You need an MRI to find out what's wrong with your shoulder? That MRI is covered, if your doctor sent you for it.

The few gaps are generally dental and vision, and only in a limited sense; dental checkups and fillings aren't considered "medically necessary", but oral surgery for things like wisdom teeth can be (mine was). Vision, you get an exam covered every so often generally, but it won't cover prescription eyeglasses. But they're practically a fashion accessory; if they WERE covered, it would just be the basic lenses and a cheap frame, everything else is a luxury item.

These questions are honestly pretty damned easy to answer.

[BeepBoo]

You seem to earn a lot of money but I would not count you as valuable.

Mhm. So, who is more valuable to society: a farmer who can produce 200 family's worth of food on 10 acres or a farmer who can only produce 100?
See, when I'm buying food at the store, I don't give a shit what the farmer who made it is like. They might as well not even exist. The people who built my house? Same thing. They could be as big of an asshole as kanye west, but if they're the best roofer with the best price, I'm fucking buying their services, because the only thing I care about from them is my house quality.

People with lots of money either do something someone wants, something someone needs, or something no one else can. Sometimes they do it so big their family never needs to actually do anything other than manage that money again.

What about people that inherit from their family ? They are rich yet they did nothing. Are they valuable for the society ?

Yes. Someone who cared about those people was so influential and so valuable at one point they managed to earn multiple or even perpetual wealth for their family (if the family isn't retarded and avoids squandering it). I fail to see how that's hard to understand. Microsoft, amazon, walmart, ford, etc... all of those revolutionized humanity forever.

Someone giving someone else they care about an advantage with their own money is perfectly fine with me.

[Inuyaki]

There are too many questions that need to be answered to get folks on board with this:

1. What happens to my employee healthcare benefit? do I receive it or does it get rolled into company's coffers.
2. How much will my taxes rise?
3. How much will my out of pocket pay change? (probably similar to #2)
4. Will the quality of care change?
5. Will the wait times for quality care be significant?
6. What will actually be covered? (this is a problem with current healthcare system)

There are about a million ideas for universal healthcare currently, and it'll take years to condense that into one to be voted on. Currently the most popular among progressives is "free healthcare for everyone and make the rich pay for it (rich includes middle class)"

1) You obviously should get a part of that. Otherwise look for other companies, that are not that bad. Your healthcare not being tied to your company means you have way more freedom in your choice of jobs.
2) Less than your healthcare costs are right now. Except you are in the 0.1% I guess.
3) Out of pocket? Most universal systems don't have that. You (most likely) can just go to the doctor for nothing...
4) Why would it? You think a doctor will think "Ow man, we now have universal healthcare, time to get worse at my job"?
5) Wait times won't change that much I guess. Some could go up, if now all the people that never went, go to the doctor. Some will go down, because you have less bureaucracy. This actually is an aspect that saves time, but is often overlooked.
6) No idea. The more the better, I guess. So fingers crossed

[Endus]

Gonna need some evidence for this one.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...rspective-2019
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...em-performance
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/ho...ther-countries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154469/

I mean, literally just do some basic research. It's pretty clear you've literally never bothered.

It's a measure of what that person has done for society and how much that society likes what they've done essentially.

Nope. Principle rejected wholesale.

In a capitalist system, it's solely a measure of one's capacity to exploit others for personal gain. It has no connection to the contributions one makes to society.

If your view were accurate, the rich playboy who's done nothing but whore around and do expensive drugs on his parents' yacht and live off his inheritance has "done more for society" than the person who's spent their entire life building up their city's food bank system from the ground up, vastly improving its efficacy and resources in that time, but only ever taking a modest salary for their work.

That's clearly stupid, meaning your principle is ridiculous.

Lol. Why is Van Gogh suddenly something more than just an artist who cut his own ear off and had a unique style of painting that was only popularized after his death? What exactly did he do to help make peoples' lives better when he was alive? Did he invent some contraption like the steam engine? Did he produce enough food to feed 100 people?

This doesn't even warrant response. I can just point at what you said and let it speak for itself in condemning you and everything you believe. It practically deserves applause. Kudos, you made my point better than I could have.

Ignoring the fact that you can simultaneously need care and have more money... It's not like Someone anyone is getting chemo as an elective procedure.

Just regularly denied coverage for chemo, or lack insurance in the first place and could never afford chemo. Funny how you're ignoring that.

Gonna need some form of evidence that this is a regularly occurring thing that would influence rates in any meaningful way the way you insinuate as well.

You need evidence that people who are uninsured because they are poor cannot afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for medically necessary procedures?

You can't possibly be fucking serious.

[Inuyaki]

Mhm. So, who is more valuable to society: a farmer who can produce 200 family's worth of food on 10 acres or a farmer who can only produce 100?

Who is more valuable? A farmer that works for 10 hours a day and produces 200 family's worth of food. Or the owner of that farm that exploits him and sells those 200 people the food overpriced?

[Specialka]

Mhm. So, who is more valuable to society: a farmer who can produce 200 family's worth of food on 10 acres or a farmer who can only produce 100?
See, when I'm buying food at the store, I don't give a shit what the farmer who made it is like. They might as well not even exist. The people who built my house? Same thing. They could be as big of an asshole as kanye west, but if they're the best roofer with the best price, I'm fucking buying their services, because the only thing I care about from them is my house quality.

People with lots of money either do something someone wants, something someone needs, or something no one else can. Sometimes they do it so big their family never needs to actually do anything other than manage that money again.


Yes. Someone who cared about those people was so influential and so valuable at one point they managed to earn multiple or even perpetual wealth for their family (if the family isn't retarded and avoids squandering it). I fail to see how that's hard to understand. Microsoft, amazon, walmart, ford, etc... all of those revolutionized humanity forever.

Someone giving someone else they care about an advantage with their own money is perfectly fine with me.

Last time people wanted to have privileges like you want, there was a Revolution in my country and we beheaded our king. Just saying.

And by your standards, a philopopher, for instance, is worthless as they tend to earn little.

[BeepBoo]

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...rspective-2019
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...em-performance
https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2020/07/ho...ther-countries
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154469/

I mean, literally just do some basic research. It's pretty clear you've literally never bothered.

I mean literally just use your brain and separate actual outcomes from treatment from the bundled statistics that include everyone (even those who don't get treatment).

While we might spend more, those of us that do get treatment have virtually the same outcomes as other places.

That's clearly stupid, meaning your principle is ridiculous.

Like I said, you're ignoring what the parents of the kid did that got them that money in the first place.

Just regularly denied coverage for chemo, or lack insurance in the first place and could never afford chemo. Funny how you're ignoring that.

Right, but I guarantee those chemo doctors are still busy, even with all the denied coverage. That's my point: there is way more demand for things than there is supply. If it's just a bunch of rich people getting all the chemo, but they all still need it just as much as the poor person, does it actually matter? Being at 100% capacity is being at 100% capacity. That's what allows you to start picking and choosing, and I'd choose people who were more capable of paying if I were in that boat, too.

You need evidence that people who are uninsured because they are poor cannot afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket for medically necessary procedures?

No, going to need evidence that this is more than like 10 people. Your supposition was that the US is denying and/or avoiding giving so many people care that, if you factor in those people, our stats take a nose-dive.

- - - Updated - - -

And by your standards, a philopopher, for instance, is worthless as they tend to earn little.

Most philosophers are worthless. Some of them (as you insinuate) do manage to make a living off it. Either as professors at colleges getting people to pay them or by some other means, but yeah. If people think it's worth it, people will pay it. That simple.

[Endus]

I mean literally just use your brain and separate actual outcomes from treatment from the bundled statistics that include everyone (even those who don't get treatment).

While we might spend more, those of us that do get treatment have virtually the same outcomes as other places.

Why would I ever exclude those who are denied treatment in the USA from consideration in the evaluation of how successful the American healthcare system is?

I'm not interested in editing the facts to lie to the audience, thanks.

Like I said, you're ignoring what the parents of the kid did that got them that money in the first place.

By your argument, that shouldn't matter. So now you're moving goalposts.

I know it's convenient to pretend that "having money" equates to "benefit to society", but that's just complete horseshit.

Right, but I guarantee those chemo doctors are still busy, even with all the denied coverage. That's my point: there is way more demand for things than there is supply. If it's just a bunch of rich people getting all the chemo, but they all still need it just as much as the poor person, does it actually matter? Being at 100% capacity is being at 100% capacity. That's what allows you to start picking and choosing, and I'd choose people who were more capable of paying if I were in that boat, too.

Supply rises to meet demand unless you're controlling the markets. Which insurance companies do. Someone denied coverage, whether directly by insurance denying a claim or indirectly by not being able to afford insurance at all, they're excluded from the market, and do not contribute to demand.

The only way supply wouldn't rise to meet demands is if there were some limit on that supply, and frankly, there's plenty of people who could become oncologists. Other countries don't have the problem you're talking about, because it isn't a real problem, it's just insurance manipulation.

No, going to need evidence that this is more than like 10 people. Your supposition was that the US is denying and/or avoiding giving so many people care that, if you factor in those people, our stats take a nose-dive.

Already provided. You're just unwilling to actually look at evidence, because it might challenge your unthinking presumptions.

But, if you want more;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-medical-costs
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1614856/
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...-lack-coverage
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...enied-coverage

Like I said; you've made up a story in your head based on nothing, and have never made even a modicum of effort to look into the facts.