This is what the for profit health care system in the US has done for us. It has doubled the cost. The US already spends as much per capita on socialized medicine (e.g. Medicare) as other countries, and this doesn't even start to cover everyone.
On top of that, US citizens are still worse off when it comes to health. The US trails other countries in important statistics such as life expectancy and infant mortality. We are paying more and getting worse health care. WTF?
I say that the experiment has already been run. Socialized medicine wins by a long shot. For profit health care has failed.
This is where we will argue: * That public healthcare means lower taxes. * That public healthcare means less bureaucracy. * That public healthcare means better outcomes. * That public healthcare means cheaper private healthcare if you want it. * That public healthcare means that you will be better able to afford private healthcare if you want it. * That public healthcare is just. * That public healthcare is desirable. * That the present system of healthcare in the USA is neither capitalism nor socialism, but an evil hybrid producing the worst of both worlds. * That it is undeniably best that the USA should have public healthcare.
Replace healthcare with education and ask again. What if we privatized elementary education so that only a certain percentage of families could afford it?
Let's do the same with roads. Let's privatize all of them and allow different companies to work together to set prices. How long before the lower 10% of wage earners can no longer afford to use roads, or send their kids to school?
Of course public healthcare will increase taxes. It will also eliminate the need for private health insurance premiums. A big bonus is that people will start seeing primary care doctors before their ailments become so bad that they go to the emergency room. A visit to a primary doc for a simple cure is WAY CHEAPER than a trip to the ER for an ailment that has gone too far. As of now, those unpaid ER bills are paid by other customers. We are already paying for the emergency care of the uninsured. It would be better for EVERYONE if they had publicly funded health insurance that would allow them to see a primary family doc.
Seems to me (from my rarified outsider view) that it would be a very Republican thing to do to have universal health care paid by the workers via taxes.
The Republican plan is to give each person $2,000 dollars in tax credits to spend on private health insurance. This is the plan that McCain ran on in 2008. IOW, they want to throw fuel on the fire. The fundamental flaw in the American system is a lack of any coherent policy and zero price controls. The Republican plan would only throw more money into this pit.
Should people eating horrible food that is CLEARLY doing serious damage to their health, while not doing a single exercise all day except walking to the fridge, be allowed to partake in a free healthcare system with other, better fit people who place enough value on their health to take care of themselves with good dieting and exercise?
Yes, they should receive health care. Health care should be given out based on need for that health care. Giving out health care based on morality based judgements of a patient's behavior just won't work. You will get the same convoluted and unfair system that we currently have with private health insurance where they are continually denying coverage based on liberal readings of the fine print.
Of course, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It might lower costs by offering monetary incentives for proper diet and exercise, such as "food stamps" for healthy foods and money for gym memberships.
A strong overall program will treat people based on their health care needs while encouraging proper health.
i think that is generally correct, but here in the UK we do get regualr debates about whether a heavy smoker should receive treatment for a smoking related illness if they refuse to stop smoking, or receive a liver transplant if they carry on drinking. Fair and difficult questions.
It is certainly an important debate to have, if not for the simple idea that it will bring the correct ethical position to the forefront.
The problem is that the doctor gets stuck in the middle. If I understand the Hippocratic Oath properly, a doctor has sworn to withhold moral judgements and treat an illness for the good of the patient. A doctor is NOT supposed to judge a person, and then withhold treatment if they find that patient wonting. It goes against everything a doctor should believe. Even more, how can a doctor willingly participate in a system that violates the very oath they have taken?
ABE: There is also the idea that we should not ask doctors to do something that we would not be willing to do. Could you sit in front of a family and tell them that their dad is not going to get a potentially life saving treatment because you think he will take to drink after the surgery? I couldn't do it. No way. I would treat them. They are people, just like us. They want to live just as much as any of us do.
If you take away healthcare, I mean get rid of it completely, we would faze out the weak, the over weight, the genetically inferior, and what's left is a strong, fit, superior species that would need little to NO healthcare coverage.
That's the easiet way. That is the NATURAL order of life. Why are you, and others, trying to fuck with that system of regulating when it has gotten our species this far in the history of life?
This is a common misconception with regards to evolution. It is in the "interest" of every species to preserve as much variation as possible, even variation that appears to be less fit. There are cases of beneficial mutations that rely on two mutations, the first of which could be slightly deleterious. There are also cases of two alleles being slightly detrimental on their own, but beneficial when together. Also, a detrimental mutation in one evnironment could be beneficial in a different environment, either geographically or temporally.
Long story short, the more variation the better. Monocultures are bad, very bad.
No government involvement AT ALL on anything that you should be handling yourself.
That has never worked in the modern world. Hunter/gatherer groups with no organization are easily subjugated by nations with organized governments. The Roman Empire was a perfect example of this. They conquered and then absorbed countless nations that lacked a strong centralized government. Also, governments are there to protect ourselves from each other.
Healthcare is as natural as birds building nests or beavers building dams. We have arbitrarily placed a wall between what other species do and what we do. The former we call natural, the latter we call artificial. Really, there is no difference. It is completely arbitrary.
My point is that eating is natural and so is exercising. Buildings are not.
Then why do you keep bringing up Socialized medicine?
I view universal health coverage as a system where people are treated according to their medical needs and money is collected according to income. As soon as you are denied coverage because you can not afford it it stops being universal health coverage.
I don't know of a single company that would run such a system, nor would higher income individuals willingly enroll into such a system when there was a chance to enter a system where everyone pays the same. Does Ford charge different prices for the same vehicle depending on the buyer's income level? No. Does Blue Cross charge a different fee for the same coverage depending on income level? Again, no. The only entity that is capable of putting this type of system in place is a government, IMHO. This would qualify it as socialized medicine.
It's only fair that if you're inhaling smoke into your lungs and want to die then we should let you do that.
What about the people who smoke and want to live?
Why would you try to keep someone alive who made zero effort to keep themselves alive?
I would count eating food, drinking fluids, looking both ways before crossing a street, and respiring as a minimal effort to stay alive. Don't you?
Healthcare should be a privilage rewarded to those who care about their health, not unhealthy slobs.
I guess we should only let people into rehab if they don't use drugs, right?
The fact of the matter is that we will all need healthcare at some point. Health care should be given based on need, not on a moral judgement of someone's behavior. Access to healthcare is as much a privilege as access to basic education. IOW, there shouldn't be a hurdle in place based on class. That is where our healtcare system is going, a situation where there are have's and have not's based on class. This country faced a similar issue at the turn of the 20th century where emancipated slaves and the poor did not have access to schools while the well off did. The solution was to offer basic education to everyone through public education and pay for it with a progressive tax. I don't see why we can't do the same for health care.