Forums → WEPR → Universal Healthcare

The US is the only first world country without universal healthcare.

Quite sad really, it's also the last places I would travel to for that same reason.

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

No, they are also efficient in manipulating the government and brainwashing the masses. I do not know how someone can with a clear conscience say that it's a bad thing. Sure there might be some repercussions to your economic and capitalistic market. But wall street is more of a concern in that area that is health care.

The point is that the government doesn't need to make a profit, so it has no incentive to be efficient.

Something is better than nothing. Would you rather have a ton of ****ty bread or 1 loaf of good bread for a set timespan? It being set to like a year. Really the point your seeming to carry across is that rich people deserve very good care and the poor nothing.

No, they are also efficient in manipulating the government and brainwashing the masses.

In fact, in a truly capitalistic free-market, there is no incentive whatsoever to manipulate the government, because the government can do nothing to "help" that business in the short term.

Really the point your seeming to carry across is that rich people deserve very good care and the poor nothing.

Suspend your egalitarian ideas for a few minutes as I explain this - first, the Universal Healthcare system would hurt the poor - not help them. And here's why:

1. Universal healthcare, we will define it as so: The government provides insurance for people who cannot afford it.
2. We see its immediate effect: people will be able to have health insurance that they would not have otherwise.
3. However, we also notice that it would have been better if the government had done nothing: 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. You neglect the innumerable things that could have been done with the money that the taxpayers would have done had it not been for the "Universal Healthcare" program.
4. Furthermore, higher taxes discourage risk-taking. And this has a negative side-effect: When you keep 50 cents for every dollar of profit, but you lose 100 cents for every dollar of loss, there is less incentive to take risks that may provide huge profits. Why should you build a new power plant that could bring in millions of dollars and supply a city with power cheaper than the current business - and in doing so help all consumers, when you have to earn twice your losses just to break even? And another thing: the additional cost of taxes is simply passed on to consumers - the people you are trying to help with the Universal Healthcare system.
5. 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. If the government has losses - it is not them who have to pay - it is the taxpayers. Thus if a government program fails, the taxpayers are the ones who will suffer. And when the taxpayers suffer, it may look as though only the "rich" are suffering - but the rich employ the poor. And the added cost on the rich is simply transferred to higher costs in the marketplace.

Now go back to your egalitarian ideals. Do you see how a Universal Healthcare system is incompatible with them - that you are hurting the very people you think you're helping?

Truly capitalistic free-market

That's very nice and I like how you smear it all over the forums but you have to have come to the realization that you don't have that right?

manipulate the government

The manipulation of other humans or groups of humans is part of being human. I don't know what kind of perfect world you live in but this is reality where everyone else is.

Suspend your egalitarian ideas for a few minutes as I explain this - first, the Universal Healthcare system would hurt the poor - not help them. And here's why:

I will as soon as you stop making out group biases that are produced by the group think of your nation and forced on you through conformity. Also put away your elitist notions of being intellectually superior in these forums. Relying opaque words and sudo-logic will not help your argument if it itself is weak. You use the same formulas in all your writing, it's like you have nothing new to add and just paste your opinions into your logical schemas hoping that it results in conscience and clear arguments. You also might want to be want to pull away from the egotism just a little before you alienate everyone who even mildy respected you.

Addressing the wall of points that are not really points just split paragraphs for absolutely no reason (same paste schema again).

You neglect the innumerable things that could have been done with the money that the taxpayers would have done had it not been for the "Universal Healthcare" program.

Really would you like to list them out to me? No much of a point if you can't even back it up, or you chose not to because you see it failing against itself. So you just generalize it hoping that I wouldn't nitpick it.

Furthermore, higher taxes discourage risk-taking.

Risk taking doesn't always lead to positive results. So really it's neutral so there isn't much of a point to drive at.

additional cost of taxes is simply passed on to consumers

I don't think anyone in Canada minds having slightly higher taxes. When we get better services.

For its higher taxes Canada has a larger system of social programs than the United States. This includes having a national broadcaster in the CBC, a largely government-funded health care system, and having all major universities receive partial government funding. The United States, however, does have most of its major universities subsidized by state government. The US also has two national public broadcasters which receive partial government funding, PBS (television) and NPR (radio).

Wikipedia tried to be neutral on the subject but even clever wording still comes to a certain conclusion.

Government has no real incentive to operate in an efficient way like regular business.

Seems to me a large jump to conclusions. That's like saying if you aren't payed more you won't do so well. But there have been studies that show that maxing out rewards doesn't lead to better performance.

Thus if a government program fails, the taxpayers are the ones who will suffer.

So your assuming that health care will fail?

Now go back to your egalitarian ideals. Do you see how a Universal Healthcare system is incompatible with them - that you are hurting the very people you think you're helping?

No the product or brainwashing and egocentrism has dulled your points and the structure is weakened by your elitism. Also nice job taking personal offense to points someone else raised. I guaranteeing you will make more friends that way in the future. Funny how you think that health care is a bad thing yet most of the world agrees it's not. American is know for making poor overall choices. Ranging from your choice of nuclear material to use in nuclear reactor to your metric system. But it's fine if you can justify it to yourself and ignore all other points and problems you have with your own system.

That's very nice and I like how you smear it all over the forums but you have to have come to the realization that you don't have that right?

We are arguing about whether Universal Healthcare is good or not. Similarly, you don't have that either. But that's irrelevant, because we are debating whether it is ideal or not.

The manipulation of other humans or groups of humans is part of being human.

Companies only manipulate if it benefits them.

Also put away your elitist notions of being intellectually superior in these forums

Intellectual superiority has nothing to do with this - in saying that "I think I am right" is not the same thing as saying "I'm smarter than you." There's a big difference. And I don't see how this is anything BUT a personal attack.

Relying opaque words and sudo-logic will not help your argument if it itself is weak.

Again, a personal attack - you're not pointing to anything in the argument itself.

You use the same formulas in all your writing, it's like you have nothing new to add and just paste your opinions into your logical schemas hoping that it results in conscience and clear arguments.

Another personal attack.

(same paste schema again)

Why should I come up with new material if people haven't addressed old material yet?

Really would you like to list them out to me? No much of a point if you can't even back it up, or you chose not to because you see it failing against itself. So you just generalize it hoping that I wouldn't nitpick it.

There - they have extra money to produce or buy any of the above.

They have extra money to create any of the above.

OK - here are a few examples. And above all, these are things that taxpayers choose - not things that the government chooses with other peoples' money.

And I don't mind nitpicking. I don't get upset when my arguments are attacked. But please refrain from personal attacks.

Risk taking doesn't always lead to positive results. So really it's neutral so there isn't much of a point to drive at.

All business ventures involve some risk. But, for instance, look at the Empire State Building in New York City. Empire State Building
Having to employ thousands of workers for such a project means that you think that this venture will work - that it will turn a profit. But what if you only keep 50 cents of what you would have earned from profit and you lose 100 cents of what you have just paid your workers.

In this way, taxes discourage innovation and potentially very profitable ventures such as the building of the Empire State Building (or insert another costly business venture).

Also think about everyday businesses. How much more difficult it is to set up a business if you only get to keep 50 cents of every dollar you make and lose 100 cents of every dollar in costs! And this added cost means you have to charge twice as much for your products to turn a profit, and with this added cost, that means that consumers are worse off! And yet many would claim they are helping small businesses!

I don't think anyone in Canada minds having slightly higher taxes. When we get better services.

You only get to see what is seen - you never get to see the unmade goods; the unbuilt buildings; the uncreated jobs. It takes a huge psychological effort to imagine all of these things.

Seems to me a large jump to conclusions. That's like saying if you aren't payed more you won't do so well. But there have been studies that show that maxing out rewards doesn't lead to better performance.

The government isn't spending its own money - it gets its money from taxpayers, and it will continue to get money from taxpayers no matter what.

Businesses are spending their own money - they get their money from consumers, and they will only continue to get money from consumers if they remain competitive.

Thus, businesses are forced to appeal to consumers, whereas inefficient government programs can perpetuate themselves for decades.

So your assuming that health care will fail?

It's a conditional statement.

No the product or brainwashing and egocentrism has dulled your points and the structure is weakened by your elitism.

Personal attack.

Also nice job taking personal offense to points someone else raised.

Please tell me where this is, and if it indeed was taking offense to points someone else raised, I apologize. But I honestly don't know where this was.

Funny how you think that health care is a bad thing yet most of the world agrees it's not.

Funny thing how you atheists don't believe in god yet most of the world agrees there is a God...

A majority says nothing about the truth.

American is know for making poor overall choices. Ranging from your choice of nuclear material to use in nuclear reactor to your metric system.

Are you saying that Americans use too little nuclear power?

Attacking Americans in general doesn't really say anything about the argument either.

But it's fine if you can justify it to yourself and ignore all other points and problems you have with your own system.

Bitter irony.

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.

If the government didn't need to make a profit, why can't the government give us free health care that doesn't cost us anything, not even tax dollars?

I don't think anyone in Canada minds having slightly higher taxes. When we get better services.

This is true. Any health care statistic will show you Canada ranks higher than the USA when it comes to overall healthcare.Compare!

Einfach, your arguments about the economy are lovely, but I see no merit to them. The current system in America is a drain on the working man, and several resources. The USA pours more money into their system than Canada does, and yet we, the Canadians, have been found to have a superior system over the past decade.

As for your comments about hurting the poor, I don't see the logic behind that. Canada is hurting the poor by providing for them? How so? In America the medical bills for any severe illness would bankrupt a family. Canada's system avoid this for the most part.

Picture two tightrope walkers. One has a safety net, the other does not. One day the both fall. The one with the safety net is, for the most part, unharmed. The other suffers severe injury and must take a great deal of time to recover. That is how I see the USA and Canada. Canada has the safety net, the USA does not.

You only get to see what is seen - you never get to see the unmade goods; the unbuilt buildings; the uncreated jobs. It takes a huge psychological effort to imagine all of these things.

[url=http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usunemployment&met=unemployment_rate&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=american+unemployment+rate]America's

My point? Statistically we have more people building those bridges and roads. Even with our "high" taxes.

A majority says nothing about the truth.

My graph does. And yes it's from 2000.

Recent Article

they get their money from consumers, and they will only continue to get money from consumers if they remain competitive.

So...those bailouts...wasn't that taxpayer money?

Are you saying that Americans use too little nuclear power?

America uses the most nuclear power in the world. It's what they put in the reactors that's a problem.

It's a conditional statement.

No, it's an assumption. You assume it will not work because America is "different" from everyone else. Believe it or not most of the developed world runs a capitalistic economy. And hey, they seem to be doing fine. And in economics if it works for a lot then it's probably a good system.

We are arguing about whether Universal Healthcare is good or not. Similarly, you don't have that either. But that's irrelevant, because we are debating whether it is ideal or not.

That's funny, why did you even bother putting it up earlier? If it isn't part of the argument then you shouldn't of written about it. I never said I had it either, nice try thought.

Companies only manipulate if it benefits them.

Exactly the problem. If you manipulate enough you hurt people that are indirectly involved. They then only have momentary gain while everyone else suffers.

Another personal attack.

Just returning the favor. You can't expect to be the only who does it, then not have it done to you?

Why should I come up with new material if people haven't addressed old material yet?

Not even the point.

There - they have extra money to produce or buy any of the above.
They have extra money to create any of the above.

Wow, your the only country that has a market or cities? Wow my bad universal health care is evil then. </sarcasm>

And I don't mind nitpicking. I don't get upset when my arguments are attacked. But please refrain from personal attacks.

Sorry but your the one who started it. So I wouldn't mind if you refrained from it in your writing and tone. If you would kindly stop it I wouldn't have a reason to return the same mannerisms back at you.

You only get to see what is seen - you never get to see the unmade goods; the unbuilt buildings; the uncreated jobs. It takes a huge psychological effort to imagine all of these things.

Apparently it takes even more to imagine free health care and a set of morals to chose it above capitalistic standards. (You can see here you started a personal attack and I just responded. Just for future reference.)

Thus, businesses are forced to appeal to consumers, whereas inefficient government programs can perpetuate themselves for decades.

What for you is inefficient government programs?

It's a conditional statement.

I assume you can calculate the probabilities of what you think will work instead of falling back on sudo logic and wording it up with basically, "I don't know".

Personal attack.

Only a response to your own.

Please tell me where this is, and if it indeed was taking offense to points someone else raised, I apologize. But I honestly don't know where this was.

Your the one who started to get but hurt and then employ a tone and mannerism that conveyed that I am some sort of idiot. If you need help finding it then just read your comments in an objective way I'm sure you will find it.

Funny thing how you atheists don't believe in god yet most of the world agrees there is a God...

They are pretty unrelated, try again.

Are you saying that Americans use too little nuclear power?

Nope.

Attacking Americans in general doesn't really say anything about the argument either.

I have to get to you somehow you apparently think it's the best thing since Wikipedia articles on logic.

Bitter irony.

It's more than that if you think I am fixed on my ideals like you.

Sorry for double post but last one was a pretty long and I didn't refresh to include this in my last comment.

America uses the most nuclear power in the world. It's what they put in the reactors that's a problem.

Oh wow someone else who is informed on the subject +2 internet points of just being well informed.

Any health care statistic will show you Canada ranks higher than the USA when it comes to overall healthcare.Compare!

One thing I strongly dislike about inductive data is that people always seem to have different statistics from one another. For example, in this situation, I have heard that the US has the best healthcare system in the world, that it has a great cancer survival rate compared to other countries, and that people from other countries go to the US to get important operations because they get put on waiting lists in other countries.

This is one reason why I have always preferred deductive evidence to inductive evidence - because it is absolute, you can't have an opinion about logic. It seems as though anyone can come up with statistics, articles, or studies that point to the fact that they're right, but only one party (if any party at all) can demonstrate their case deductively.

Furthermore, I never made the claim that the US system is the ideal healthcare system. But the deductive evidence above seems to point to the idea that a free-market would deal with healthcare better than even Canada's system does, regardless of how good Canada's system is.

Canada is hurting the poor by providing for them? How so?

It seems a little counterintuitive, doesn't it.

But recognize that they are only "helping the poor" through a government-sponsored program. And this program must be funded.

And the funds come from the taxpayers. Meaning to support such a program, you need to increase taxes.

By increasing taxes, you are hurting the economy, and thus, the people you are trying to help through this system. Unfortunately, when people at the top are hurt through higher taxes, the relative cost of production increases because resources are being diverted to the government and its programs, and the added costs are passed on to consumers.

Wow, your the only country that has a market or cities?

Umm...my point is that you get more goods. Not that we'll get cities and you won't. That there's a cost to healthcare that isn't seen by people.

Just returning the favor. You can't expect to be the only who does it, then not have it done to you?

What are you referring to? Was it the "suspend your egalitarian views for a few minutes" - I was trying to let you see my viewpoint. Often feelings can interfere with rational thought, especially when the result is counterintuitive.

So I wouldn't mind if you refrained from it in your writing and tone. If you would kindly stop it I wouldn't have a reason to return the same mannerisms back at you.

Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right". Even if I did use a personal attack, that doesn't justify one on your side!

Apparently it takes even more to imagine free health care and a set of morals to chose it above capitalistic standards. (You can see here you started a personal attack and I just responded. Just for future reference.)

Actually, it does apparently look like a personal attack that you quoted. Oops.

But it isn't. I was referencing a poem about the Broken Window Fallacy (a poem that translates to: "That Which is Seen and That Which is Unseen&quot and the book "Economics in One Lesson" which is largely based off of the poem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

What for you is inefficient government programs?

Inductive evidence is unnecessary and redundant if you have deductive evidence.

They are pretty unrelated, try again.

It was an analogy. I was trying to demonstrate Modus Tollens how the flaw in an argument from the majority.

Nope.

Actually, the US uses a little less than 20% nuclear power and France uses almost 80%. (a little off-topic).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Umm...my point is that you get more goods. Not that we'll get cities and you won't. That there's a cost to healthcare that isn't seen by people.

So products are more important than the health of people? Really that's the main point that we are dancing around.

What are you referring to? Was it the "suspend your egalitarian views for a few minutes" - I was trying to let you see my viewpoint. Often feelings can interfere with rational thought, especially when the result is counterintuitive.

It's funny because I swear you were not objective enough and injecting your own anger into the arguments.

Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right". Even if I did use a personal attack, that doesn't justify one on your side!

Yes I did, doesn't mean I don't agree to it. It's a simplistic moral philosophy that doesn't go into the intricacies of reality.

Actually, it does apparently look like a personal attack that you quoted. Oops.

Saying I don't have imagination yet you don't know me. What is that then?

Inductive evidence is unnecessary and redundant if you have deductive evidence.

Did not answer the question just danced about and stated the obvious.

It was an analogy. I was trying to demonstrate Modus Tollens how the flaw in an argument from the majority.

I took scientific philosophy and one thing I remember really well was if experts are in agreement than everyone should reach the same consensus. Isn't that how science works? If everyone ignores the experts than what will come of society and the progression of science.

Actually, the US uses a little less than 20% nuclear power and France uses almost 80%. (a little off-topic).

Not really the point. I gave you a link on the topic.

So products are more important than the health of people? Really that's the main point that we are dancing around.

They can buy healthcare if they want. But above all, if it's private, then the consumers decide what to do with the money - not the government.

It's a simplistic moral philosophy that doesn't go into the intricacies of reality.

Yeah you're right there, but it brings up a valid point - An action isn't justified solely because I did it to you. You have to have valid reasons besides it.

Saying I don't have imagination yet you don't know me. What is that then?

You're taking it personally - I was referencing a poem.

Did not answer the question just danced about and stated the obvious.

If I interpreted your question right, it meant something to the effect of "Give me an example of a government program that is inefficient."

I took scientific philosophy and one thing I remember really well was if experts are in agreement than everyone should reach the same consensus. Isn't that how science works? If everyone ignores the experts than what will come of society and the progression of science.

Galileo's work was condemned by the so-called "experts" of his time. Does that mean that he should have accepted their consensus?

If the experts are in agreement, then surely they can recall the reasons for which their arguments are right. And it is for these arguments, and not simply because they are the majority, that these things are right. It is a matter of correlation and causation - the correlation - the experts being right, is not the causation - the experts are not right because they think so; rather the experts are right because of underlying reasons.

They can buy healthcare if they want.

You believe that to be a fact? No everyone can afford health care.

But above all, if it's private, then the consumers decide what to do with the money - not the government.

So it's a poor choice in your opinion to have poor health care? Is it also a bad choice that society has adopted democracy?

Yeah you're right there, but it brings up a valid point - An action isn't justified solely because I did it to you. You have to have valid reasons besides it.

No if someone punched me then I would defend myself which could lead to me punching them back. Or just punching them back due to reflex or anger. So no you don't need valid reasons, I am a human after-all, maybe if I was a robot I would succumb to that logic but sadly I am not.

You're taking it personally - I was referencing a poem.

If it's a poem then you should say so I can't be expected to have read every written work in the history of mankind. I could take it out of context if I don't even know there was a context there to being with.

If I interpreted your question right, it meant something to the effect of "Give me an example of a government program that is inefficient."

Yes, what is your personal opinion to what government programs are a waste because if you don't have one why bother arguing about health care?

Galileo's work was condemned by the so-called "experts" of his time. Does that mean that he should have accepted their consensus?

He was condemned by the church not his fellow peers. Even the Church later accepted his expert opinion and overabundance of evidence.

If the experts are in agreement, then surely they can recall the reasons for which their arguments are right. And it is for these arguments, and not simply because they are the majority, that these things are right. It is a matter of correlation and causation - the correlation - the experts being right, is not the causation - the experts are not right because they think so; rather the experts are right because of underlying reasons.

They are right because they followed the scientific methods to their complete ends and found reason to agree that these theories are right. They were tested and mathematically proven to express reality that they lived in. The expert theory is really just a branch of the scientific theory the end of it really where people agree to the theory and accept it to a majority. People are welcome to challenge and dispute it.

You believe that to be a fact? No everyone can afford health care.

True, in the current state. But certain policy changes can be made to make it more affordable than it is now. For example, in the US, I read once that 10% of the cost of health care is legal fees and malpractice insurance for doctors. Now in certain situations malpractice laws are very good, but there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits dealing with these. A loser-pays system would lower the cost of malpractice insurance, and in turn, the cost of health care itself.

If insurance companies have monopolies, then competition can be stimulated by allowing companies from other states to compete nationwide. This would drive down the cost of health care because it is in each company's individual self-interest to have lower health insurance costs than other companies, and through competition, the best companies - those that best served consumers - would become more prosperous and would be selected for.

And if the price of health care can be driven down no further, then government can not possibly do better. Government operates through taxes. The only difference is that you're forced to accept health care, and you're forced to pay for it whether you want it or not, and whether it's in your best interest or not.

So it's a poor choice in your opinion to have poor health care? Is it also a bad choice that society has adopted democracy?

I don't exactly understand what you're saying here. But democracy alone is not good. One must simultaneously have a democracy and a bill of rights to prevent a tyranny of the majority.

Yes, what is your personal opinion to what government programs are a waste because if you don't have one why bother arguing about health care?

On a federal level, only a military should really exist, and that's only when necessary.

I read once that 10% of the cost of health care is legal fees and malpractice insurance for doctors.

I've never heard of this and since I live in a country with health care I can say I disagree with said article.

If insurance companies have monopolies, then competition can be stimulated by allowing companies from other states to compete nationwide. This would drive down the cost of health care because it is in each company's individual self-interest to have lower health insurance costs than other companies, and through competition, the best companies - those that best served consumers - would become more prosperous and would be selected for.

Competition doesn't lead to affordable pricing. It might lower it but it's already at a high extreme so I don't see how it would lower it much. They know they are making good money so they will find was to maintain competitiveness without lowering prices.

On a federal level, only a military should really exist, and that's only when necessary.

In your ideal world then how would it operate if there is basically no need for government programs?