It's easy as hell to say in writing that if we did this and that it would do this and that. Quite frankly there is no legitimate proof of what would happen one way or another.
I personally do not think that the United States could support a true universal healthcare system....and to someone from earlier that said it had to do with the media...that's just blame shifting.
I think the concept of universal healthcare is awesome...in concept. In practice, it doesn't quite work out as well. When I was still active duty I was very fortunate in that I got to do a lot of traveling. I've been to Italy and saw their universal healthcare system, I've been to Canada and seen their healthcare system as well...Canada does have a beautiful system in place. However, in practice there isn't a one size fits all. That's all their is to it.
There is NO OTHER LIKE SIZED COUNTRY to the US that has universal healthcare. Simply put, the country is to big to support it. There is also one tiny, itty bitty inconvenient fact about US Health care...statistically speaking we have some of the best in the world. As in, people from Canada come to the US for treatment of cancer and other aggressive illnesses.
I digress though, as that wasn't the point. I think universal healthcare in theory, for a small country with an airtight economy is beautiful. I think for the rest of us we need to get real and just fix our current medical system and remove all the waste from it.
How is size NOT an issue? a 10% flat tax isn't only wishful thinking, but not viable.
The larger the country the more resources it will have to pull in order to achieve it's goal.
Example: Italy, they have universal healthcare. However, even their private hospitals are a fraction the quality of what even the standard hospital has in the states. That is with a country that doesn't even have to compete with our fiscal responsibilities.
My statement actually has been supported, and was a key point during the debate...
If you look at the list of countries that have successfully implemented a universal healthcare program they are all significantly smaller than the US ( http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/list-of-countries-with-universal-healthcare/ )
You also have a large non working aging population, see baby boomers. Not to mention the ever increasing amount of our population that is becoming dependent on their ability to scam our disability and welfare program.
I would say that a flat 10% tax across the board would be an actual viable option if we had no more lower income, and the average american was making 250K a year. That I feel would be a comfortable number to not only take care of our current fiscal demands, but MAYBE be able to support a legitimate universal health care program.
It's easy as hell to say in writing that if we did this and that it would do this and that.
It is easy as hell to say in writing that there is no right answer. But there clearly is a right answer. To counter my statement on page 4, you need to argue deductively. Because as of now, it seems to be a deductive proof against a Universal Healthcare system.
What could the taxpayers' money being going to, Einfach?
A billion things - creating shoes, creating televisions, creating whatever you want, buying stuff, etc. And above all, the money is going to be used how the taxpayers want it to be used. That's the point I'm trying to get across - that only in a capitalistic system is the money used how taxpayers want it used.
I read that if loopholes were eliminated, and there was a ten percent tax increase, we would have a a surplus of one trillion dollars in six years.
This is 0-sum. You think that if you increase taxes, there will be no loss in production.
If there were a 10% increase in taxes, what is the incentive to produce more and more efficiently if you keep 50 cents for every dollar you earn and lose 100 cents for every dollar you lose?
High taxes discourage efficiency and risk-taking in economies. All businesses have some risk involved, but high taxes limit the possibilities for profitable but risky ventures. It thus leads to a decrease in productivity which in turn leads to fewer taxes taken in by the government than would have been expected. So in reality, the 1 trilion dollar surplus assumes that the amount earned would stay constant - and it wouldn't.
The problem isn't money.
The problem isn't competition either. The government isn't under the same restrictions that a business has since it doesn't need to make a profit.
Which is exactly the reason why it is worse for people - competitive businesses are selected for in a capitalistic economy. Competitive government programs are not selected for.
It is easy as hell to say in writing that there is no right answer. But there clearly is a right answer. To counter my statement on page 4, you need to argue deductively. Because as of now, it seems to be a deductive proof against a Universal Healthcare system.
That is because in my opinion, and from what I've seen in practice universal health care as currently defined is not a realistic goal for a country of this size. It would be a trade off. If we did bite the bullet and decide to go for more preventative medicine (which is the strong point of universal health care) our strong point, which is treating aggressive illnesses and having the highest cancer survivor rate in the world would go away. That is why countries like Canada have a large amount of citizens that will pay out of pocket to be treated in the US.
Not to mention that your wait to get into the hospital for emergencies shoots through the roof, as is a well documented problem in universal healthcare operating countries. ( canada for example http://www.healthcarebs.com/2007/09/03/canadians-running-to-us-for-health-care/ )
http://img337.imageshack.us/f/ncancer121lv3.gif/ - cancer survival rates graph - you can find a better version of it with google
If universal health care was actually viable i would love to have it. However, I do not think, that in these united states, with the population to support that we do have, that universal health care is an actual, legitimate goal for us to have.
That is because in my opinion, and from what I've seen in practice universal health care as currently defined is not a realistic goal for a country of this size.
But my point is that Universal Healthcare is simply sub-optimal no matter the case. The size of the country doesn't matter at all with this deductive reasoning.
Inductive data is absolutely useless when you have deductive reasoning.
I don't believe that it's....sub-optimal at all. I think for some places it can work great. Just not here in the states.
You do?
Then please counter the argument on Page 4, 3rd post down.
Quoted:
At first glance, it looks good - people will be able to have health insurance that they would not have otherwise. However, you're not taking into account what could have been done with the money. If in the taxpayers' hands, that same amount of capital could have been used for other means.
So it stops being a question of "Are the immediate effects of the policy of Universal Healthcare good?" and it becomes the question of "Is the public policy of Universal Healthcare better than private industry?"
Now notice that there is inevitably more waste in the government-run business.
Government has no real incentive to operate in an efficient way like regular business.
Businesses have to compete with other businesses, and in a capitalistic free market, they have to use their own money. Government, however, isn't risking their own money - they're risking the taxpayers.
Inevitably, Government-provided Healthcare has an overall negative effect compared to the alternative: allow a capitalistic free market.
The free market you capitalists always extol do so well because they screw the consumer.
Actually it's quite the opposite. In a free market, where there exists a situation where people are charging unnecessarily high prices, companies will outcompete their competition by charging less. Walmart, however demonized, succeeds extremely well in satisfying the consumer - and is extremely successful.
Anyone who had to visit the hospital for any length of time due to illness or trauma will tell you the insurance companies are just as bureaucratic as the government and the sole thing they are efficent at doing is extracting payments while providing little to partial service.
If insurance companies are bureaucratic, in a free-market, they will be outcompeted by more "fit" companies. This will satisfy the consumer better than a government-run monopoly. And this argument quoted is an argument from authority, and is an informal fallacy.
The government is not under the restrictions of income. Most businesses don't provide the best healthcare coverage, and if they do, they usually are very expensive.
The government can provide the best healthcare coverage, and since it doesn't need to make a profit, it can offer it cheaper for most people.
