The Case Against Universal Healthcare

[shagster01]

I understand personal responsibility and luck of the draw. I also realize that no matter how responsible people are luck of the draw trumps it at times. That is the whole purpose of universal healthcare. It's the whole purpose of Social Security, including disability and survivor benefits. It's the whole purpose of unemployment benefits. We are a society. As a society we recognize that when some suffer it affects us all. We can either work together to alleviate much of the suffering, or we all turn our backs on the suffering, allowing our elderly to starve, leaving our disabled to fend for themselves, and put our orphans into workhouses. But by ignoring those needs it makes our entire society as sick, callous and twisted as those individuals who can blithely watch others starve during their lobster dinner. That sickness will eventually kill the society. When everyone is forced to fight, scratch and claw to survive, nobody ever actually thrives. The goodness of life is destroyed in all the fighting.

The idea of "a rising tide lifts all boats" has been proven false. By trying to climb on each other to keep our heads above water most end up drowning. When we all work together to lift each other up, everyone survives. If one gets weak, those who are stronger hold them up until they recover. Then when you have your moment of weakness there will be others there to keep you afloat. That is what society is all about. Otherwise just do away with governments and law and let the mayhem begin.

If you want to have this system with people that's fine. But there needs to be an opt out for people like me who don't want to pay in and expect no help in return.

Why are you intent on helping me if I don't want it?

 

[Morpheus]

If you want to have this system with people that's fine. But there needs to be an opt out for people like me who don't want to pay in and expect no help in return.

Why are you intent on helping me if I don't want it?

Then leave. By living here you benefit. If you want to be self-sufficient then find yourself some island or desolate place and have at it. But if you are going to share in the luxuries built by society then be prepared to pay for it. There is an opt-out. It's commonly called being a bum.

 

[shagster01]

Then leave. By living here you benefit. If you want to be self-sufficient then find yourself some island or desolate place and have at it. But if you are going to share in the luxuries built by society then be prepared to pay for it. There is an opt-out. It's commonly called being a bum.

You keep changing the way things are and telling people who don't like it to leave. Why don't you leave instead of trying to change the way things are?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Once again today, shagster makes a salient point. :up:

 

[Morpheus]

You keep changing the way things are and telling people who don't like it to leave. Why don't you leave instead of trying to change the way things are?

I was speaking in more general terms. If you don't want anything from society, in general, then you would have to leave in order to accomplish it. By living here you benefit from the work of others, and should be prepared to share in the costs. More specifically, on healthcare, since as a society we deem it inhuman to simply turn our backs on intense suffering, people showing up at a hospital are afforded emergency care. Whether you like it or not that is a benefit you derive from living here. Others could either be expected to pay for your care or you would be expected to pay up, even if you were unconscious upon arrival, and even if it bankrupts you for the rest of your life. This has been a problem with the system for quite some time. To solve it we can, as a society, either move to simply letting emergency patients die, even if we can not immediately ascertain their insurance, or we can move to some form of universal healthcare so that immediately determining coverage is unnecessary. This way everyone pays at some level and others are not expected to cover the costs of those who are just leeches. Those who honestly are too poor to pay will still get help. As I said before, as a society we collectively determine a basic morality, and there are benefits that are inherent with inclusion in the society. If you individually do not wish to share in those benefits, with the costs included, then you would have to leave. By living here you are deriving the benefits whether you like it or not.

 

[Tinark]

I see your MO is going to try to appeal to my heart by making it personal.

But yes, I do think that. It's been that way for thousands of years. I would gladly accept donations, and fight as hard as I could to overcome. But I don't think people should be legally obligated to pay for my problems.

I know you don't understand personal responsibility and luck of the draw, but they are real none the less.

But why do we have to accept that when other countries have demonstrated it can be improved upon? Makes no sense to have to rely in large part on luck for one's well being. Even if you are a responsible person, you can lose your job (and your insurance that comes with it) and then suddenly have a pre-existing condition develop, making it next to impossible to get new insurance.

Finally, other countries have demonstrated that a UHC system is not only more compassionate, but it is often lower cost with just as good, if not sometimes better, results. The US spends almost double on health care costs per person compared to other developed countries and, for that money, not every one is covered and has access, and there are only a few areas that have marginal additional benefit in outcomes compared to other countries, and some areas that have slightly worse outcomes.

 

[shagster01]

But why do we have to accept that when other countries have demonstrated it can be improved upon? Makes no sense to have to rely in large part on luck for one's well being. Even if you are a responsible person, you can lose your job (and your insurance that comes with it) and then suddenly have a pre-existing condition develop, making it next to impossible to get new insurance.

Finally, other countries have demonstrated that a UHC system is not only more compassionate, but it is often lower cost with just as good, if not sometimes better, results. The US spends almost double on health care costs per person compared to other developed countries and, for that money, not every one is covered and has access, and there are only a few areas that have marginal additional benefit in outcomes compared to other countries, and some areas that have slightly worse outcomes.

I've stated I'm not opposed to it as long as there is an opt out.

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I'm against it completely. However, I'd budge a little if our taxes were only covering genetic diseases or no-fault problems.

But if you chose to smoke or eat big macs your whole life why do I have to pay for the related health problems?

Because of compassion. Because without such a system in place people will slip through the cracks who cannot afford their healthcare and will suffer because of it. Is that right, fair or just?

 

[lovemeorhateme]

I am against it LMOHM, for the simple fact that it intrudes on my liberty, let me explain. I pay a premium for the health care plan that I have for myself & family and it is such that I pay a very small co-pay for anything that we may need, no deductible, no questions asked just first class service. I had my appendix removed last year so, it was emergency room, hospital stay, surgery, drugs, etc. I paid $100 out of pocket, the rest was covered. Now, I do not feel I need to pay the government, ask the governments permission, or justify anything to receive the level of care I want, I will pay for it and I do not feel that I should have to pay more so some other person's family can have the same level of care I have, I have the liberty to choose what I want, for the price I am willing to pay. I know in a socialist country as yours that the state has set up a plan and you agree to pay higher taxes to support it but, by doing so you have resigned your liberty to the state in lieu of a service, no? Nothing is free and I feel no moral obligation to provide for anyones needs but, my own family...period. People have an obligation to provide for their own families as well but, that does not somehow magically become my responsibility. It may be a forgone conclusion that America will eventually set up a system such as your own in the UK but, it would have to be a better design than the Obamacare failure to get it done here that is for sure.

Thank you for your explanation. I have just a few questions:

Do you think that as Christians we have the moral obligation to help those in need?

Change health service for fire service. Do you think you should have to pay for the fire service that you don't use if you never have a fire?

Do you feel it's wrong that your taxes are paying the fire service to put out someone else's fire?

Finally, do you honestly believe that those who can afford it should be entitled to better healthcare and those who can't should be denied healthcare?

Edit: I would just like to echo the comments of others here that the UK is not a socialist country. We may have a government which has some policies which may be considered socialist by some, but this is definitely not a socialist country.

 

[HisServant]

The real problem is the corporatization and regulatory strangle hold our government has on the healthcare market.

Care should be pretty darn cheap and within the means of 90% of the country with no insurance needed.

 

[Tinark]

I've stated I'm not opposed to it as long as there is an opt out.

That would defeat the purpose - you'd have healthy people opting out, leaving no funding for the sick and less healthy. Then, when they did get sick, they'd be demanding treatment in emergency rooms and the like.

You don't get to opt out of programs that benefit the public just because you don't like them. The US is really the only holdout in this regard. You don't see any groups of any influence in all the other countries with UHC trying to abolish it - once people experience its benefits, it becomes quite popular.

 

[resodko]

... there needs to be an opt out for people like me who don't want to pay in and expect no help in return.

i expect you'll be glad of any help you can get when you develop something that's fully treatable, expensive to treat and fatal if untreated

 

[quip]

I understand personal responsibility and luck of the draw. I also realize that no matter how responsible people are luck of the draw trumps it at times. That is the whole purpose of universal healthcare. It's the whole purpose of Social Security, including disability and survivor benefits. It's the whole purpose of unemployment benefits. We are a society. As a society we recognize that when some suffer it affects us all. We can either work together to alleviate much of the suffering, or we all turn our backs on the suffering, allowing our elderly to starve, leaving our disabled to fend for themselves, and put our orphans into workhouses. But by ignoring those needs it makes our entire society as sick, callous and twisted as those individuals who can blithely watch others starve during their lobster dinner. That sickness will eventually kill the society. When everyone is forced to fight, scratch and claw to survive, nobody ever actually thrives. The goodness of life is destroyed in all the fighting.

The idea of "a rising tide lifts all boats" has been proven false. By trying to climb on each other to keep our heads above water most end up drowning. When we all work together to lift each other up, everyone survives. If one gets weak, those who are stronger hold them up until they recover. Then when you have your moment of weakness there will be others there to keep you afloat. That is what society is all about. Otherwise just do away with governments and law and let the mayhem begin.

[Edit] Part of personal responsibility is realizing how my success is due to the health of the society. Those of us who have succeeded have a greater personal debt to the society that facilitated our success. When we reach a particular level we shouldn't pull up the ladder. Instead we should finance an elevator to make it easier for others to join us. Hoarding is ultimately destructive, while sharing facilitates growth, which, in the long run, brings us greater personal return.

Well said. :cheers:

For their sake, let's hope the rugged individualists remain rugged...... lest they risk their individualism.

 

[Tinark]

The real problem is the corporatization and regulatory strangle hold our government has on the healthcare market.

Care should be pretty darn cheap and within the means of 90% of the country with no insurance needed.

Why would it be cheap? Doctors are expensive, R&D performed by educated scientists, engineers, and medical professionals is expensive. Intensive care with a full staff of nurses and doctors to provide round the clock care in a hospital is expensive.

 

[resodko]

... By ignoring and rejecting the needs of others you are ignoring and rejecting Jesus. If you don't love others enough to care for their physical and emotional needs, then you don't truly love Christ. If that isn't "moral obligation" enough for you then what is?

i'll send you the bill for my housing, clothing and food expenses

 

[Tinark]

i'll send you the bill for my housing, clothing and food expenses

If you become disabled and unable to work, or become temporarily unemployed, or earn a low income to where you are unable to meet basic necessities, I'm sure you will (by taking advantage of the programs that are available to help pay for these expenses).

 

[resodko]

who gets to determine what my "basic necessities" are?

me?

you?

mopey?


and what if i just don't wanna work?

 

[Tinark]

who gets to determine what my "basic necessities" are?

me?

you?

mopey?

Biology determines it.

 

[resodko]

what if biology requires cable and internet access to thrive?

 

[Tinark]

what if biology requires cable and internet access to thrive?

It doesn't - it is an objective fact that humans didn't die off due to the lack of it. However, I think free internet service at libraries is a good thing to have - it allows those with little means to better themselves by applying for jobs or to educate themselves. It's a public service that pays for itself and therefore a good investment.