AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Universal Healthcare

89 17271
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Since I just saw the Socialism thread stray into universal healthcare, I wanted to put it here.

How does universal have a negative effect on people?

  • 89 Replies
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

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


Everything would be privatized.

Read this. It is a story about a pencil.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Everything would be privatized.


>.> Not much of a solution.
Paarfam
offline
Paarfam
1,558 posts
Nomad

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

Only in America, my friend. All other countries can have any type of government they want, unless it's a democracy, then they gotta vote on it.
Einfach
offline
Einfach
1,448 posts
Nomad

They know they are making good money so they will find was to maintain competitiveness without lowering prices.

Well, customers generally try to get the most "bang for their buck" and the companies that offer that will outcompete companies that don't. And between those, it is in each company's individual self-interest to lower their prices if they can continue making a profit, so that they get a larger share of the business than their competition.
In your ideal world then how would it operate if there is basically no need for government programs?

Like Noname said, things would be privatized, and another thing is that just because things don't operate that much on a federal level doesn't mean that you can't have more local governments that have programs of their own.

If a particular state (we're assuming this is the US still) wants to have an income tax of 40% but provide health insurance, then I'm fine with that. As long as their not kidnapping people from their state. There's more of an emphasis on state's rights, and less federal.
Only in America, my friend. All other countries can have any type of government they want, unless it's a democracy, then they gotta vote on it.

This isn't a proposal for a statist government that uses aggression to force other governments to do what we want them to do. This is only talking about the ideal government in the particular state.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

All I know is that money should not be involved in having healthcare.

Republicans are more interested in money than people having healthcare.

Such a shame that teenagers support the destruction of their society.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Taxes.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

You cannot please everyone


Exactly.

Providing universal healthcare is not as good as providing different healthcare from various companies, as companies would have to compete to stay around.


Still not sure how that solves the problem of people being able to AFFORD coverage. Also, that doesn't solve the problem of people with pre-existing conditions. Should those people be left to rot?
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

Uuh, not through the government but through different companies that can provide different types of healthcare, which a. allows for people to choose what they need to survive and b. causes more competition in the market. Competition is good, and companies must do well to provide the best, and not slouch and provide bad healthcare as with eliminating any competition would do.


Funny thing is, this hasn't happened. Companies can't afford to cover so many things, it's ridiculous. People end up paying for mediocre healthcare and then when they get into a car accident and get cerebral hemorrhages, they have to pay thousands of dollars for that one treatment.

You say that competition produces the best healthcare, but from what we've seen, competition has provided mediocre healthcare.
Not many people will appreciate massive tax increases. You cannot please everyone. Massive tax increases to provide universal healthcare will please and piss people off at the same time.


So? They won't appreciate higher taxes, but they'll appreciate the best possible healthcare.
Providing universal healthcare is not as good as providing different healthcare from various companies, as companies would have to compete to stay around.


They don't compete. How often do you see healthcare companies advertising? Very rarely. Why? Because they have nothing to offer.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

All I know is that money should not be involved in having healthcare.


[quote]Then how will healthcare be provided?


Taxes.[/quote]

Tax is money.

It doesn't matter if it's a free market or national health care, money will be involved.

Republicans are more interested in money than people having healthcare.


Not necessarily true by any means what-so-ever. Don't get me wrong, there are republicans, as well as democrats, who are only interested in money, but this statement is pretty worthless in itself.

I would be considered republican, and I would rather people be able to afford health care for themselves than force everyone to pay for an inflated health care program. Remember, the American health care system did not represent the free market. There are many politicians who screwed health care up so that it became more expensive. Rather than finding alternate ways of paying for health care (through taxes), I believe we should allow hospitals to compete wherever possible and force them to lower prices.

Of course, if you have an emergency, you probably won't have much of a choice as to where you go, but anything less than that is an opportunity to sit down and do some research and compare hospitals to fix problems.

The point is, health care will cost money. Money will always be involved. Hey, I want poor people to be healthy too. I think it would be great if everyone could get healthcare for free, but it isn't free. It comes out of the pockets of everyone, the rich AND the working class. Don't get me wrong though, I still believe there are ways to help the poor who have illnesses. For one, we can fix our insurance companies so that they can compete with each other more. We can also find ways to push drugs into the market sooner and cheaper.

We can also get rid of medicare, which means taxes will go down and people will have more money to pay for medical treatments. There will also be less government driving away competition, meaning more businesses that will be cheaper and more effective.

We all want to help the poor, but we should help the poor by letting them have more money. We shouldn't keep giving them money so that by the time they finally make enough to pay taxes, we take their money away making them poor again. Why work when the government can pay for you?

So no, I'm not a heartless git. I believe in allowing people to help each other without using force, and allowing companies to compete with each other which will drive businesses to under cut each other's prices which allows them to have more business than their competitors, making prices ever more cheaper for the customer.

The government forces you to pay for their services, anyone who undercuts them can not "steal" their business away, because people will always be paying the government. The government will have no incentive to lower their prices (taxes) to compete with other companies.

So please, let's stop with the "what about the poor?" We should let those who want to take care of the poor take care of the poor and offer the poor more health care options that can be customized to fit their individual needs (making costs cheaper).
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

You say that competition produces the best healthcare, but from what we've seen, competition has provided mediocre healthcare.


This is because the health care system is not competing at free market standards, but corporatist standards. Politicians would be payed off by insurance companies to make it harder for others to compete, allowing certain companies to raise their prices.

There's competition you find in the free market and competition you find in a corporatist market. We do NOT support the corporatist market. A corporatist market would be a market where politicians try to play favorites with particular private companies.

So? They won't appreciate higher taxes, but they'll appreciate the best possible healthcare.


You keep comparing national health care with the failing system. You aren't taking into consideration the system we are talking about, one where health care becomes affordable even for the poor through means of FAIR competition.

They don't compete. How often do you see healthcare companies advertising? Very rarely. Why? Because they have nothing to offer.


If they have nothing to offer, we should allow allow other companies who do have something to offer to compete. Politicians made it hard to compete with the current health care systems by creating so many costly regulations.

Remember, you're comparing national health care with a system that is failing and one that we do not support. We want to fix health care without having to raise everyone's taxes and force everyone to pay.

I also don't understand why everyone's taxes must be raised. If health care is meant to save the middle and lower class money, why does the middle class still have to pay at all? Why not make the rich pay for everything? I'm not saying that that's the answer, just want some clarification for lack of consistency.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

I also don't understand why everyone's taxes must be raised. If health care is meant to save the middle and lower class money, why does the middle class still have to pay at all? Why not make the rich pay for everything? I'm not saying that that's the answer, just want some clarification for lack of consistency.


The only answer I have is: It's politics. There is no such thing as consistency
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

NoName, I read your entire post, and I understand it. I would just like to illustrate it for you, a bit.

You say that since we lower taxes, the poor will individually have more money.

The problem that I see, is if we lower taxes, that doesn't mean the price of healthcare will go down also.

If healthcare costs $4 800, companies have to mark it up to $5 000 to make a profit.

I have recently been in a car accident and my healthcare provider doesn't cover cerebral hemorrhages. I need $22 000 to cover it. I don't have half of my annual earnings to spare, so what do I do? I go into massive debt.

This is what is happening all over the country, or has happened. But you say if we reform this, then it would be more like this:

I have recently been in a car accident. I need $22 000 to pay for it. Healthcare provider pays for it, but now your healthcare premium goes up by 25% because you need treatment for your hemorrhages.

Instead of paying $5 000 a year, you pay $10 000 to pay for your treatment. Eventually, it'll go down, but for the time being, you have to pay double of what you were paying.

With my proposed idea, none of these problems will arise. Here is the government scenario:

I pay $25 000 in taxes (half my salary), and now I have healthcare, along with many other services, covered. I no longer have to worry about healthcare or anything.

I have been in a car accident and am suffering from cerebral hemorrhages. The treatment costs $22 000. Government covers it by using ~$15 000 from others.

I receive my treatment, and I don't have to worry about money. A millionaire who pays ~$500 000 in taxes helps a man live a healthier life.

NoName, either way you pool the money. The difference between it is that in one, you don't have to worry about money. The government does that for you.

Also, the government can't tax you back into poverty. I proposed a tax bracket where everyone would make a minimum of $25 000.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Wolf proposes a new question.

Why not incorporate both systems? This way people have a choice.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

NoName, either way you pool the money. The difference between it is that in one, you don't have to worry about money. The government does that for you.


I worry about money every other week and every year around tax day. Some people like to keep a close eye on the money they make. I would rather take it upon myself to save as much money as possible just in case of an accident, so when I do die, any money left over can be passed down to my children or used for a number of other things. In fact, if I end up saving enough money, I could stop saving, it would be like buying a house where after so many years I stop having to pay. The opportunity to create a system that works for you is absent.

The idea that the government worries about your money for you is how insurance is supposed to work in the first place. Insurance is a system so that if something happens, you're covered. Insurance is as the name implies, it is insurance. If people with pre-existing conditions could get insurance, it would be called coupons.
Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,420 posts
Nomad

I worry about money every other week and every year around tax day. Some people like to keep a close eye on the money they make. I would rather take it upon myself to save as much money as possible just in case of an accident, so when I do die, any money left over can be passed down to my children or used for a number of other things. In fact, if I end up saving enough money, I could stop saving, it would be like buying a house where after so many years I stop having to pay. The opportunity to create a system that works for you is absent.

The idea that the government worries about your money for you is how insurance is supposed to work in the first place. Insurance is a system so that if something happens, you're covered. Insurance is as the name implies, it is insurance. If people with pre-existing conditions could get insurance, it would be called coupons.


Your basic argument is that taxes can be stressful, but they aren't. The money is nearly identical, but the difference is the coverage and the change of premiums.
Showing 61-75 of 89