• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Universal Health

Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1
Reaction score
4
Location
Romans, Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
I strongly believe the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the negatives. The government has the moral duty to make sure each and every citizen has healthcare/insurance. Socialized medicine ensures that nobody is left untreated. A healthy population= a happy population. Look to France and the Nordic countries for success stories.
 
I strongly believe the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the negatives. The government has the moral duty to make sure each and every citizen has healthcare/insurance. Socialized medicine ensures that nobody is left untreated. A healthy population= a happy population. Look to France and the Nordic countries for success stories.

Other people disagree with you.

There is also some middle ground, socialized insurance, which makes a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately middle ground is rarely considered.
 
Other people disagree with you.

There is also some middle ground, socialized insurance, which makes a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately middle ground is rarely considered.

I'm having trouble understanding why we treat healthcare different than police and fire protection.
 
Doing that will require that we curtail the profitability of that sector of the market.





In short, it's not gonna happen.



Nice thought, though.
 
I strongly believe the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the negatives. The government has the moral duty to make sure each and every citizen has healthcare/insurance. Socialized medicine ensures that nobody is left untreated. A healthy population= a happy population. Look to France and the Nordic countries for success stories.

To get universal health care you must give up your right to life. What success is there if you lose your most sacred right?
 
Other people disagree with you.

There is also some middle ground, socialized insurance, which makes a lot of sense to me, but unfortunately middle ground is rarely considered.

Same thing, really, though universal insurance is a more roundabout way of doing it. Simpler to just cut out the middle man, as both would have the same result in the long run.

You can't have a universal health insurance scheme without cost controls, same as you can't have universal health care without cost controls.

But require the cost controls. And it's the cost controls that sink the idea every time.
 
I strongly believe the benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the negatives. The government has the moral duty to make sure each and every citizen has healthcare/insurance. Socialized medicine ensures that nobody is left untreated. A healthy population= a happy population. Look to France and the Nordic countries for success stories.
It does? Says who?

Oops, your a communist. Never mind.
 
Right now I'm leaning towards it but I want to see the US make it legal for Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceuticals before I decide to go all out for it.
 
Nobody lives forever, what a silly claim. Untrue too.

I never claimed anyone lived forever.

The right to life is voided if the government controls the 5 W's of health care (who, what, when, where, why and how). That is what UHC does. The government says who can get health care (usually citizens and in some cases legal aliens). The government says what can be done (there is always a list of approved and disapproved procedures). The government will tell the "covered" when and where they can get health care (usually government run facilities, often with waiting lists). The government will restrict why you attend a doctor (Britain tells women they CAN NOT get a breast exam until they reach a certain age). And the culmination of all of the previous examples is the how (often a set of procedures for requesting and obtaining health care).

You would not claim religious rights if you had to go to a government run church. You would not claim the right of expression if it was only on a government approved forum. You would not claim the right to travel if it required government approved transportation. You would not claim the right to bare arms if you were issued a government weapon. You would not claim rights of any kind that must come from the government. So how could you possibly claim you have the right to life if you have to get your health care from the government? When your medical conditions are treated at the whim of a government bureaucracy, how could you ever claim to be free?
 
My impression, honestly, is that universal healthcare in light of our debt is wholly unaffordable. Certainly it would entail price controls, nationalizing doctors, hospitals, etc. Meaning new hospitals would necessarily have to be built, doctors would become salaried civil service employees, supplies would be imported, etc. There are two problems with this: one, the fed has a long history of bureaucracy, nepotism, and sinecures; two, we are a free country, therefore unable to outlaw private practice. What doctor is going to take a job with the state at 120k a year when he can earn a million a year in private practice? What medical student with a half million in student loans aspires to work for the state? So in essence we'd create two healthcare systems - one for the poor and one for rich. What then of the inequity? Because the rich, believe me, are always going to have their private doctors and hospitals.

There is a solution, a quite reasonable solution: reintroduce the large scale employers.
 
Last edited:
I never claimed anyone lived forever.

The right to life is voided if the government controls the 5 W's of health care (who, what, when, where, why and how). That is what UHC does. The government says who can get health care (usually citizens and in some cases legal aliens). The government says what can be done (there is always a list of approved and disapproved procedures). The government will tell the "covered" when and where they can get health care (usually government run facilities, often with waiting lists). The government will restrict why you attend a doctor (Britain tells women they CAN NOT get a breast exam until they reach a certain age). And the culmination of all of the previous examples is the how (often a set of procedures for requesting and obtaining health care).

You would not claim religious rights if you had to go to a government run church. You would not claim the right of expression if it was only on a government approved forum. You would not claim the right to travel if it required government approved transportation. You would not claim the right to bare arms if you were issued a government weapon. You would not claim rights of any kind that must come from the government. So how could you possibly claim you have the right to life if you have to get your health care from the government? When your medical conditions are treated at the whim of a government bureaucracy, how could you ever claim to be free?

Paranoiac nonsense.
 
I'm having trouble understanding why we treat healthcare different than police and fire protection.

I'm having trouble understanding why we treat healthcare any different than any product or service we would purchase at Walmart.
 
Guess which nation does not have universal health care:

US_health_spending_is_much_greater_for_all_categories_of_care_slideshow.jpg
 
My impression, honestly, is that universal healthcare in light of our debt is wholly unaffordable. Certainly it would entail price controls, nationalizing doctors, hospitals, etc. Meaning new hospitals would necessarily have to be built, doctors would become salaried civil service employees, supplies would be imported, etc. There are two problems with this: one, the fed has a long history of bureaucracy, nepotism, and sinecures; two, we are a free country, therefore unable to outlaw private practice. What doctor is going to take a job with the state at 120k a year when he can earn a million a year in private practice? What medical student with a half million in student loans aspires to work for the state? So in essence we'd create two healthcare systems - one for the poor and one for rich. What then of the inequity? Because the rich, believe me, are always going to have their private doctors and hospitals.

There is a solution, a quite reasonable solution: reintroduce the large scale employers.

You don't need to do any of that. You simply make the government the insurer of last resort but expanding Medicare to cover people who cannot get their own insurance.
 
I'm having trouble understanding why we treat healthcare any different than any product or service we would purchase at Walmart.

Agreed. Tying health insurance to employment was a particularly short sighted move.
 
Same thing, really, though universal insurance is a more roundabout way of doing it. Simpler to just cut out the middle man, as both would have the same result in the long run.

Eliminating private insurance companies is politically not viable, so if I was King, I would have them administer the plan.

You can't have a universal health insurance scheme without cost controls, same as you can't have universal health care without cost controls.

But require the cost controls. And it's the cost controls that sink the idea every time.

Free market competition is the best cost control that has ever existed. All we would have to do is to have a substantial portion of every medical bill that the citizens have to pay. Maybe citizens pay 100% up to $1,000 per year, then 50% on the next $4,000 in costs, then 25% on the next $5,000 in medical expenses, then 10%, 5%, 2%. This would give the patient ample reason to shop for care based upon price, and not everyone has to shop based on price for competition to work, only a good size portion have to shop based upon price.

That said, we would probably have to require that medical providers have a published price list that is accessible to the general public, so that we can make apples to apples price comparisons and look at a range of options for care, pretty much like we do when we shop for anything.
 
Last edited:
My impression, honestly, is that universal healthcare in light of our debt is wholly unaffordable. ...

Why? We pay for healthcare one way or another, universal healthcare would simply shift the cost from our bank accounts and insurance companies to the tax payer. Universal health care wouldn't need to result in more aggregate spending, it's just a shift in spending.

Anyhow, our government can't go "broke", unless we want it to (like when congress shuts it down intentionally). Our government has unlimited ability to print, tax and borrow, and it typically does all three most every year, and it has been doing this for 235 years. You do realize that the federal debt is not new, it's always existed, and if all debt was repaid today, the US dollar would no longer exist (we issue dollars by the government creating dollars from thin air and then lending them from one part of government to the treasury). Also, you do realize that EVERY COUNTRY which issues money has a federal debt don't you? That debt exists to stablize the value of our currency, treasury bonds give people who have more money than what they know what to do with a guaranteed 100% safe place to park their money - it's like a savings account. Without the ability to purchase US treasury bonds, our dollars wouldn't be worth as much, particularly to the people who purchase large amounts of treasuries, such as China.
 
Why? We pay for healthcare one way or another, universal healthcare would simply shift the cost from our bank accounts and insurance companies to the tax payer. Universal health care wouldn't need to result in more aggregate spending, it's just a shift in spending.

Anyhow, our government can't go "broke", unless we want it to (like when congress shuts it down intentionally). Our government has unlimited ability to print, tax and borrow, and it typically does all three most every year, and it has been doing this for 235 years. You do realize that the federal debt is not new, it's always existed, and if all debt was repaid today, the US dollar would no longer exist (we issue dollars by the government creating dollars from thin air and then lending them from one part of government to the treasury). Also, you do realize that EVERY COUNTRY which issues money has a federal debt don't you? That debt exists to stablize the value of our currency, treasury bonds give people who have more money than what they know what to do with a guaranteed 100% safe place to park their money - it's like a savings account. Without the ability to purchase US treasury bonds, our dollars wouldn't be worth as much, particularly to the people who purchase large amounts of treasuries, such as China.

I don't know if you fully understand. "We" are not paying for healthcare one way or another; traditionally, our employer has provided insurance, which typically covered virtually all medical and dental costs. You are shifting that cost from the employer to the employee. And today a week in the hospital without a single surgical procedure can cost in excess of 100k. What percentage of that, in addition to the price of insurance, which is ridiculously expensive, do you feel the average working-class family can afford?

And simply laughing at our failure, to point to single-payer, as increased medicaid costs, does not in any way resolve this issue of unaffordable care. There was a lot this congress could have done to address our ridiculously over-priced fee-for-services system, but they did nothing.

I would also add that your financial wisdom is greatly oversimplified; worse, it's only as secure as the faith others ascribe to it: good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
You don't need to do any of that. You simply make the government the insurer of last resort but expanding Medicare to cover people who cannot get their own insurance.

And increased state and federal taxes benefit the working and middle-class how? Also, the medicaid gap between poverty and "affordable" is huge.

We have a system now that is doomed to failure because congress did not have the wherewithal or the intellect to address it.
 
Last edited:
And increased state and federal taxes benefit the working and middle-class how? Also, the medicaid gap between poverty and "affordable" is huge.

We have a system now that is doomed to failure because congress did not have the wherewithal or the intellect to address it.

Who do you think ultimately pays for ACA? The middle class is going to pay the lion's share of any universal health care scheme. The only real question is do you do it in the first place and if so how you implement it.
 
Eliminating private insurance companies is politically not viable, so if I was King, I would have them administer the plan.



Free market competition is the best cost control that has ever existed. All we would have to do is to have a substantial portion of every medical bill that the citizens have to pay. Maybe citizens pay 100% up to $1,000 per year, then 50% on the next $4,000 in costs, then 25% on the next $5,000 in medical expenses, then 10%, 5%, 2%. This would give the patient ample reason to shop for care based upon price, and not everyone has to shop based on price for competition to work, only a good size portion have to shop based upon price.

That said, we would probably have to require that medical providers have a published price list that is accessible to the general public, so that we can make apples to apples price comparisons and look at a range of options for care, pretty much like we do when we shop for anything.

Intellectual property eliminates any free market derived cost controls.

If someone invented the cure for cancer today, and had it copywritten, and wishes to charge, say, 250K per shot for the cure, what, exactly, would you be able to do about it, cost control wise? You COULD make the argument that the best way to make a profit is to price something at a range that allows for maximum profit margin, AND maximum sales due to affordability, like a middle ground between the two. And that MIGHT work...if there were no insurance companies to absorb and obscure the prices. That, of course, also relies HEAVILY on good business practices. Something we don't see a lot of these days, which is why our markets are so volatile.

I simply don't put a lot of faith in free market principles when we have nothing at all resembling a free market, and I CERTAINLY have ZERO faith in the industries that have DEVISED this market using unscrupulous means to further their own ends. And like it or not, THAT is the world we live in.
 
I don't know if you fully understand. "We" are not paying for healthcare one way or another; traditionally, our employer has provided insurance, which typically covered virtually all medical and dental costs. You are shifting that cost from the employer to the employee.

Exactly, we are unburdening our employers from having to nanny us. We can then make our own health care decisions, go to whatever provider we want, and make the best deal that we can, just like we do every other product. I don't need my employer to buy my food for me, just give me the dam money and I will buy my own food.

And today a week in the hospital without a single surgical procedure can cost in excess of 100k. What percentage of that, in addition to the price of insurance, which is ridiculously expensive, do you feel the average working-class family can afford?
Under our current system, the typical family spends more on insurance (directly or indirectly) than we do in healthcare over our life span. We could pay 100% of that if there was no spending on insurance (by us, our employers, the guberment, etc). Anyhow, I would think that paying 100% of the first thousand, 50% of the next $4k, 25% of the next $10k, 10% of the next 10K, and 5% of the remainder would be reasonable. So add all that up, it's about $10k. It's substantial enough that I would price shop, and low enough that even if I had to make payments on my treatment, it wouldn't financially devistate my family.

But you are missing the point that health care providers and insurance companies are ripping us off. Our current system is exceptionally complicated, and those who have insurance are grossly overcharged to make up for those of us who don't have insurance and often recieve huge non-insured discounts or even get treated without paying a penny. That $100,000 bill could easily be just $25k if everyone paid and if there was price competition between providers. Now under the deductible system that I outlined above, we are only talking about $6,500, which is about what insurance costs a family of 4 for three months coverage.

Part of the reason that American families are as broke as we are is because we spend way too much on medical care and insurance.

I met with congress a year before Obamacare became law, and proposed a system similar to what I outlined here. At the time, all levels of government combined paid almost 50% of our national healthcare bill. That was $1.2 trillion dollars of government healthcare and health insurance spending. It averaged out to about $4,000 per citizen. That's actually enough to purchased a high deductible insurance policy for every single citizen, and rebate each citizen a thousand dollars into a personal HSA which could then be used to pay for deductibles, transfered between family members to pay each others medical expenses, or carried over from year to year if not utilized. Way back then we were 50% the way to a 100% universal healthcare system, these days, with the Obamacare subsidies and expansions of medicade, we are probably a lot closer to already paying for universal healthcare. But if we set up the deductible system so that we on average paid out of pocket 50% of our cost, even assuming that costs don't decline (although I am confident that it would), then we already are spending enough tax dollars to pay for universal health insurance.

And simply laughing at our failure, to point to single-payer, as increased medicaid costs, does not in any way resolve this issue of unaffordable care. There was a lot this congress could have done to address our ridiculously over-priced fee-for-services system, but they did nothing.

By getting rid of the cause of high medical costs and significantly reducing insurance company overhead, and equally spreading out the money that the government already spends on healthcare, we solve the issue of unafforable care.

I would also add that your financial wisdom is greatly oversimplified; worse, it's only as secure as the faith others ascribe to it: good luck with that.

Yes, it is over simplified. I don't care to retype all of the details, but I would be more than happy to discuss your concerns on an item by item bases.
 
Who do you think ultimately pays for ACA? The middle class is going to pay the lion's share of any universal health care scheme. The only real question is do you do it in the first place and if so how you implement it.

The middle class, directly and indirectly, already pays for the lions share of medical spending. So there's no difference there.
 
Intellectual property eliminates any free market derived cost controls.

If someone invented the cure for cancer today, and had it copywritten, and wishes to charge, say, 250K per shot for the cure, what, exactly, would you be able to do about it, cost control wise? You COULD make the argument that the best way to make a profit is to price something at a range that allows for maximum profit margin, AND maximum sales due to affordability, like a middle ground between the two. And that MIGHT work...if there were no insurance companies to absorb and obscure the prices. That, of course, also relies HEAVILY on good business practices. Something we don't see a lot of these days, which is why our markets are so volatile.

I simply don't put a lot of faith in free market principles when we have nothing at all resembling a free market, and I CERTAINLY have ZERO faith in the industries that have DEVISED this market using unscrupulous means to further their own ends. And like it or not, THAT is the world we live in.

I agree with that totally.

That's part of the reason that if I were to become King today, I would spend more taxpayer dollars on medical research, so that any solutions and cures can be made available to anyone who wishes to offer them. We need to end the monopoly on drugs and proceedures.
 
Back
Top Bottom