Should the US Start with the Premise that it WILL Provide Universal Healthcare?

[CharonY]

I feel no moral obligation to provide health care to able bodied adults or their dependents. I do not feel that others are morally obligated to provide me or my dependents with health care.

Only in any insurance system (regardless whether it is healthcare or not) those that do not claim essentially pay for those that do. You do not directly pay yourself. If you did you wouldn't need an insurance in the first place. In a completely unregulated system that would mean that those that need coverage most would get kicked out first (or have huge premiums). I am aware that in the US there is a strong reluctance to pay for anything that seemingly does not only benefit oneself. However every insurance is essentially a pool into which every participant pays into, but only a few actually draw something out. Funny bit is when the government tries to establish something like that it suddenly becomes socialist. If it is a company it is capitalism...

 

The no-profit restriction on healthcare insurers, which was a strong undertone in all these plans, is indeed needed if you want to make an insurance based system work. If you take out the profit, you minimize the inflation caused by the basic principles of insurance bringing in more money than it gives out.

 

Quoted for importance.

[ParanoiA]

Some interesting perspectives in here. I really appreciate John5746's appreciation for the insult in thinking of healthcare, which requires the servitude of another, as a right.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't think of it as a privilege, for all. Not saying I'm signing on to any particular idea, but I wouldn't kick and scream to start from this premise and move forward. Which is, essentially, iNow's proposal. I think the language matters though. I don't want to see spoiled brats some-odd years from now arguing about how they have a right to this and that.

 

I don't think that conflicts with my insistance we come up with something better than has been conceived by mankind thus far.

 

The no-profit restriction on healthcare insurers, which was a strong undertone in all these plans, is indeed needed if you want to make an insurance based system work.

 

I don't know that I want an insurance based system. I know I don't have much need for middle men and the very concept of insurance disgusts me. I'd prefer something that ends up with me rewarding my provider, directly. Non-profit sounds like a great angle since we're talking about healthcare.

 

Incidentally, this is partly why the libertarian in me takes a back seat on this discussion, most of the time. Healthcare is a people-first priority and the government, in theory anyway, is best suited for that arrangement.

 

Also, I realize cost is a big issue here. But let's caution ourselves. We don't want to get so focused on minimizing costs that we stop putting quality first. We cannot allow our obsession with efficiency and money to undermine common sense. Good doctors want to get paid. Talent requires good compensation, or it will go away. They work harder than most people, and they deserve it. We deserve them as well. Let's keep that going.

 

 

Only in any insurance system (regardless whether it is healthcare or not) those that do not claim essentially pay for those that do. You do not directly pay yourself. If you did you wouldn't need an insurance in the first place. In a completely unregulated system that would mean that those that need coverage most would get kicked out first (or have huge premiums). I am aware that in the US there is a strong reluctance to pay for anything that seemingly does not only benefit oneself. However every insurance is essentially a pool into which every participant pays into, but only a few actually draw something out. Funny bit is when the government tries to establish something like that it suddenly becomes socialist. If it is a company it is capitalism...

 

For one, when the government does it, I HAVE to contribute, whether I want to or not. Capitalism can't make me do one damn thing. For two, when the government does it, it's one large pool. When capitalism does it, each company is a different pool, varied by success and merit and each compete with each other. I can choose which pool I want to get into, or not one at all, PLUS, they are motivated - by threat of their very existence - to be efficient.

 

The thing is, they're only concerned about being efficient enough to make a profit, not to best serve me.

 

Socialism forces us to assimilate and collect. Capitalism allows us to assimilate, collect, or something else, or not at all.

 

It's like saying I shouldn't bitch about being pushed down the hall when I was already headed that way on my own. I don't take being pushed around very lightly.

 

2. A major problem area in universal coverage is the grey "Elective" area. How do you judge the "quality of life" part of the surgery? Which of two hip replacement patients needs his "more"? It's in this grey area that most complaints come from.

 

Yeah, I have to say, this is my most concerned area, actually. This is the kind of thing to make somebody blow up a freaking hospital. I could just see this happening to me, after spending all of my life NOT being a burden on the system, at all. Then, the one time I need something, I don't get it because some other guy - who's no doubt been milking the system since his teens - qualifies for a hip replacement, while I'm not suffering enough to qualify.

 

That's what pisses us insurance payers off. We pay and pay and pay, paycheck after paycheck and we get effective medical treatment in return. It's expensive, to be sure, but we don't get denied because our insurance carrier can't afford it and this is the latest cost saving measure. So when we are forcibly shifted to some universal system, prolific with "electives", it's an insulting downgrade.

 

We should not employ any system that doesn't deal with this equally or better than our current arrangement.

Edited April 3, 2009 by ParanoiA

[jackson33]

Only in any insurance system (regardless whether it is healthcare or not) those that do not claim essentially pay for those that do. You do not directly pay yourself. If you did you wouldn't need an insurance in the first place. In a completely unregulated system that would mean that those that need coverage most would get kicked out first (or have huge premiums). I am aware that in the US there is a strong reluctance to pay for anything that seemingly does not only benefit oneself. However every insurance is essentially a pool into which every participant pays into, but only a few actually draw something out. Funny bit is when the government tries to establish something like that it suddenly becomes socialist. If it is a company it is capitalism...

Quoted for importance.

 

Insuring a car, home, business, health or some form of all encompassing 'Umbrella Policy' have different values to degree to one person/family to the next. You can insure your car at your States Minimum Liability, to cover replacement (if paid off) or to cover any number of drivers. Same for your home and their is no requirements to insure for liability, fire, flood if paid off. Health Insurance can be no deductible to 20k deductible, can cover only cancer to anything medical including a check up. It's a choice and with any use of the policy can mean an increase in premiums. Government is incapable of determining needs of any two families and cannot afford to cover every person for all needs and simply said limit access for anything.

 

Insurance Companies didn't go into business last week, they have a track record. They do pool every participating member's money, invest and HOPE, they can cover any catastrophic event, pandemic and to date have done a pretty good job. Government on the other hand, through Medicaid/Medicare has a very poor record. Each member has the same choices of any other member and pays the same price (if any). Any Clinic/Hospital Emergency Room staff will tell you people on these programs are the first to seek out and use medical care for the least of problems, while those with needs are often ignored but certainly delayed.

 

My main concern with any Government Universal Health care system, whether in a US State or from a country outside the US is quality. Even in the US today, with about 4-500k practicing physicians the average wages are under 200k, nearly half already foreign born (educated in US, stayed and not trying to insult) and most of the highly qualified have limited service to a specific illness (heart/respiratory/rehabilitation etc) work out of Hospitals that are specialized and have left general practice already.

 

 

John; I don't know where your getting your information. NO person, while in the US, for any reason and without regards to Nationality is ever refused 100% Health care. For about 100.00 as an Australian I am sure you can buy a short term policy covering your family while here, but it's not mandatory for entry or wouldn't have much bearing on the service received. For instance, when I travel in Mexico, I buy auto insurance, which covers medical cost if needed and the auto, need not be involved. If your hurt on the Sky Slopes, they don't first ask your Country of origin and go from there, but will service your injury, possibly by a better medical staffs than available in your home town and worry about the payments after alls well again. I might suggest, if and when the US goes universal, you may have to wait a little while for service while the ambulance is busy getting the latest sore throat to a hospital or if at the hospital, wait while a series of sore throats are taken care of for fear of being labled....

[iNow]

I really appreciate John5746's appreciation for the insult in thinking of healthcare, which requires the servitude of another, as a right.

I'm struggling to understand this point. How is it "forced servitude" if that other person can choose whether or not to go into the field, and also if that person gets paid for their work/effort? Can you, or perhaps someone else, articulate this point more fully? To be blunt, it sounds like you're making the argument that letting the uninsured die is preferable to asking a doctor to treat them at a controlled cost with payment coming from government.

 

 

I don't want to see spoiled brats some-odd years from now arguing about how they have a right to this and that.

That's a completely separate issue, though. Let's save that bit for its own thread. This one is about making healthcare work, and stepping up our approach to humanity by recognizing that illness is not a good enough reason for financial ruin.

 

 

Non-profit sounds like a great angle since we're talking about healthcare.

Absolutely. This seems to be a powerful point of agreement in this thread.

 

 

Also, I realize cost is a big issue here. But let's caution ourselves. We don't want to get so focused on minimizing costs that we stop putting quality first. We cannot allow our obsession with efficiency and money to undermine common sense.

Non-sequitur. The cost/quality relationship is one of correlation, not causation. Further, the issue of common sense is independent of costs.

 

 

Good doctors want to get paid. Talent requires good compensation, or it will go away. They work harder than most people, and they deserve it.

I'd rather have a doctor who cared and was in the profession for the right reasons than one who was simply practicing to rake in cash, but YMMV. Much like above, the variable of "talent" is independent of the variable of "compensation."

 

 

That's what pisses us insurance payers off. We pay and pay and pay, paycheck after paycheck and we get effective medical treatment in return. It's expensive, to be sure, but we don't get denied because our insurance carrier can't afford it and this is the latest cost saving measure.

Take the time to watch the special I linked to. Your sentiment is not really supported by the facts, and is, in fact, rather powerfully countered by them.

[ecoli]

I have strong reservations as to the effectiveness that a private system can get costs under control. The free market is great at making companies more fit in a competition for market share and profit, but the insurance system seems to employ an inverse invisible hand pressure: the less a company can cover a patient upon catastrophic illness the more money it makes.

 

This is only true when the market is uncompetitive, which is what health care lobbyists have pushed washington politicians to do.

[JohnB]

jackson33, I never actually thought that a person would be refused attention. The big difference between the systems is in this bit;

and worry about the payments after alls well again

We don't worry about payments here. When you leave the hospital, you might pay $20-30 for whatever pills that were prescribed for outpatient use, but that is it.

possibly by a better medical staffs than available in your home town

I think this is an important point to consider. For all that people are defending the US system on a cost or "principle" basis, the fact is that the care is not better.

 

According to the CIA Factbook, Infant mortality is 6.26/1,000 births. For comparison:

Cuba: 5.82

Canada: 5.04

United Kingdom: 4.85

Australia: 4.75

Sweden: 2.75

 

Do you see what the figures show? Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than you do. (And Sweden leaves all of us far behind)

 

Life Expectancy for a person born in 2006 (drawn from the WHO Annual Report)

US: 78

UK: 79

Aust: 82

Cuba: 78

 

Nations with a longer life expectancy than the US:

Andorra

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Cyprus

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Luxembourg

Malta

Monaco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal

Republic of Korea

San Marino

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

 

In every single one of those nations, the people expect to live longer than people in the US.

 

In the CIA list there are 224 nations listed from worst mortality to best. The US comes in at 179. This means that out of 223 other nations on the list 45 have lower mortality rates than the US. The "best health care"? you barely make it to the top 25%.

 

As for life expectancy, the US doesn't even make it to the top 10%.

 

Have a good hard look at what nations equal you in life expectancy and see if you like the company you keep:

Chile

Costa Rica

Cuba

Kuwait

Slovenia

United Arab Emirates

 

All the arguments concerning costs are presuming that you are getting what you pay for. You're paying absolute top dollar for your healthcare, but the figures show that you aren't getting top value for the money.

 

Think about this for a minute: A person born in Cuba has a higher chance of survival at birth and exactly the same life expectancy as a person born in the US. On the only scale that counts, how many live, Cuba is better than you.

 

A nation as smart, as great (and you are a great nation, even if you do tick the rest of us off sometimes), as rich and as compassionate (you're always there to help when natural disaster strikes) as the US should be in the top 5 every time. Rather than arguing cost, you should be saying : "We believe that as rich and prosperous nation, it is unseemly for our citizens to concern themselves with healthcare. The poorest of our citizens get healthcare equal to the world's best and we like it that way."

I really appreciate John5746's appreciation for the insult in thinking of healthcare, which requires the servitude of another, as a right.

What? The "forced servitude" is on your side of the ocean son, not mine. I choose freely where and for whom I will work, when and under what circumstances I will quit. Whether I will be able to afford healthcare doesn't enter into the equation. You might have to stay in a job you hate because of healthcare costs, but I don't.

 

"Forced servitude" is when people can't afford to leave employers or simply change jobs because of healthcare costs.

 

On a morality note. Any system that forces it's citizens to choose between feeding their children and paying for health insurance is repugnant to a civilised mind. Words fail me that you actually allow this to continue.

[ParanoiA]

I'm struggling to understand this point. How is it "forced servitude" if that other person can choose whether or not to go into the field, and also if that person gets paid for their work/effort? Can you, or perhaps someone else, articulate this point more fully? To be blunt, it sounds like you're making the argument that letting the uninsured die is preferable to asking a doctor to treat them at a controlled cost with payment coming from government.

 

Words mean things. As we've seen, in law, the consequences of those meanings are often quite systemic.

 

None of our rights cost anything, nor do they require the state to do anything. The idea being that a right is something that, philosophically, is inherent to human life - hence inalienable. It requires no capital, or work to comply with other's rights - the very existence of the state isn't even necessary, except that it's the state that defines it, in our case. The republic doesn't need any agents at all, for those rights to be in place. (To enforce them; to stop others from violating them, requires agents, but they're not needed for the rights to be exercised ).

 

To consider healthcare a right, requires the state to confiscate property from the public in order for the right to be exercised. It also gives the people a right to other's work. Remember, a right is something we expect no matter the condition of the state - broke, wealthy, depleted, healthy, whatever. So if the government has no money, they're now in blatant violation of our rights, one way or the other. They must enslave a medical worker in order to satisfy your right to healthcare. Or they must deny your right to healthcare in order to keep from violating their rights by enslavement.

 

None of our other rights require infrastructure and capital like this, to exercise. We can be broke as hell, and I can still enjoy my right to walk down the street.

 

When one talks of "rights", we must be forward thinking in how we consider the consequences, including any future potential consequences. And "strawman" is not a valid response to any forward, critical thinking effort. By it's very nature, it is speculative prescience.

 

What's wrong with healthcare being a "privilege"? That's why we have such a concept - to provide for the welfare of the public, without endangering the obligations to the state. Privilege implies a commitment without the structural conflicts of rights.

 

That's a completely separate issue, though. Let's save that bit for its own thread. This one is about making healthcare work, and stepping up our approach to humanity by recognizing that illness is not a good enough reason for financial ruin.

 

No, it's not separate at all - that's my point. You're taking me to task about resisting calling it a "right", and my reasons are a multi-point list. I provided a couple, but I could add more. It's entirely relevant and responsible to think about the implications of calling something a right.

 

You want to move on? Then don't let this get stuck in the mud of rights. Rights are too seriously polarized to expect flippant approval. We're talking about concepts that would put people in prison. That's the business end of violating a "right". So, we don't take it lightly, and we don't rush through it.

 

Non-sequitur. The cost/quality relationship is one of correlation, not causation. Further, the issue of common sense is independent of costs.

 

I'd rather have a doctor who cared and was in the profession for the right reasons than one who was simply practicing to rake in cash, but YMMV. Much like above, the variable of "talent" is independent of the variable of "compensation."

 

I'm not really sure why you're taking these concerns as arguments, but I suppose that's fair. I was speaking to my insistance that we come up with something better - something that addresses the problems in both systems - not cheap lip service, or logical fallacy labels. I want to deal with the problem of elective procedures. I want to deal with the problem of fleeting talent in other socialized systems. I want to deal with the problem of long waiting periods we hear so much about.

 

Those comments were about pointing out what little we do have right about our healthcare, which is excellent compensation, a good talent pool, and I suppose, arguably, quality care. My experience, anecdotal as it may be, has been quality. I'm almost 38, and have had several procedures. They've always been in a quality environment, with competent people, excellent service. I don't know what else to say, I have no complaints EXCEPT that not everyone can enjoy it.

 

So, I don't want to ruin that. It's great. Why screw it up? There's no reason to. We can rollout healthcare as a privilege to the american public, with a design that maintains this quality, or improves it, and doesn't turn me away from elective procedures unless it's purely a matter of doctor's advice, and doesn't make me wait unreasonable lengths of time.

 

That's really the only point of the above. Let's not screw up what we have right, that's all I really meant.

 

Take the time to watch the special I linked to. Your sentiment is not really supported by the facts, and is, in fact, rather powerfully countered by them.

 

No, it doesn't, because you didn't understand my point. My fault too, because after re-reading it, I don't get my point either.

 

I was trying to point out that I don't get denied hip replacement because somebody else needs one worse, and the insurance company can (or will) only afford ONE of us to get one. No, they are contractually obligated to provide both of us with one - assuming it's covered under our plan. The government can claim to "cover" it, yet deny me that elective if they can't afford it.

 

Don't misunderstand, I'm not advocating insurance is better than government, that ought to blaringly obvious that I have no love for insurance at all. Just pointing out that the customer has more say so and more power, armed with law, to enforce compliance with contracts in a private trade. They can't agree to one thing, but then refuse it. Government can, and does, all of the time.

 

What? The "forced servitude" is on your side of the ocean son' date=' not mine. I choose freely where and for whom I will work, when and under what circumstances I will quit. Whether I will be able to afford healthcare doesn't enter into the equation. You might have to stay in a job you hate because of healthcare costs, but I don't.

 

"Forced servitude" is when people can't afford to leave employers or simply change jobs because of healthcare costs.

 

On a morality note. Any system that forces it's citizens to choose between feeding their children and paying for health insurance is repugnant to a civilised mind. Words fail me that you actually allow this to continue.[/quote']

 

Well I explained the context of my resistance to the term 'rights', above so I won't repeat them here, other than to point out, again, that we have no right to "things" and other's labor - we have a right to negotiate for them, to trade anything we want for them. Rights are about behavior, not access to "stuff". I think you're reaction here is a bit emotive and misses the clinical application of how that is in conflict with the conceptual origination of rights.

 

Besides, I happily embrace privilege. And that's all that's necessary. We should role healthcare out as an equal opportunity privilege. Just my opinion.

 

The reason why people may feel forced to keep a job, is because we keep forcing employers to freaking pay for it!! How insane is that? We choose some arbitrary expense of ours and insist they pay for it. Why not have them cover your milk and cheese? How about auto insurance? Why don't they cover that too in my benefits package? How about my union strike and demand our employer to pay my kid's lunch money? And then I can bitch and cry about how unfair it is that I have to keep my job so my child can eat lunch.

 

Yeah, I got no sympathy there. If we would stop being stupid and creating our own problems, we might get somewhere. All I want from my employer is money. Cash. Let me shop for my goods and services. Tying goods and services to your employer creates the OBVIOUS dependent result we're bitching about. And that has nothing to do with government, either. Hey, it's a free country so I don't propose any law here of any kind. If you want to angle and leverage for goods and services from your employer, more power to you, but don't come back bitching about the disadvantages of it. That's on you.

 

And yeah, I don't know anyone who would choose health insurance over food. We also don't turn anyone down, with or without insurance, so I'm not sure what's so uncivilized about it. Letting them die on the sidewalk because they can't pay for it, would be uncivilized. The biggest problem we have related to this, I'll concede, is that without insurance there is no preventative care and maintenance, and perhaps that's a bit uncivilized. Establishing healthcare in some universal application, should remedy that. I think we need to do something new and better. We should demand it, and nothing less.

Edited April 4, 2009 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

If it's the word "right" that is causing the issue, then I'm perfectly willing to change it.

However, the word "privilege" is one I'm not willing to accept.

 

Let's just call it a banana so we can move on into the meat of the topic, okay?

 

This whole thing getting caught up with words (like in the gay marriage threads) and wasting all of this time arguing whether it's a right or a left... doing nothing when we could instead utilize our time together discussing approaches and solutions... it just infuriates me to no end.

 

John's numbers above speak for themselves.

The fact that there are countries who make this work, and who make it work well speaks for itself.

The fact that people here in the US are being forced to choose between feeding their kids and caring for their illness speaks for itself.

 

 

Nobody here is talking about free breast enhancements or liposuction for everybody. We're talking about some minimum standard of care that should be provided to all people, just like we have protections on the chemicals in our food and toys.

 

 

We must agree that there is some minimum level of humanity and enlightened treatment of the populace which must be protected, and we need to move forward on the healthcare issue with that as our foundation.

 

Having access to medical care is NOT a privilege, and perhaps not a right, but it IS an existential requirement.

[ParanoiA]

Let's just call it a banana so we can move on into the meat of the topic' date=' okay?

 

This whole thing getting caught up with words (like in the gay marriage threads) and wasting all of this time arguing whether it's a right or a left... doing nothing when we could instead utilize our time together discussing approaches and solutions... it just infuriates me to no end.[/quote']

 

You're the one directly responsible for it. All I did was throw an appreciative shout-out to John for mentioning it. Then you responded by asking for an articulation. I do that, and now you're bitching that it infuriates you to no end. Well shit man, make up your mind.

 

Look, I realize you're more of an 'end result' kinda guy. That's cool. But you might steer clear of the mechanics sand box then, because that's where we're at when we get pedantic about words and laws and the philosophical conclusions they represent. We don't invent rights willy nilly; they have a foundation of construction that must be respected. If that's not your interest, then why hang out there?

 

 

Privilege is all that is required, in terms of law. Driving is a privilege, and most don't even realize it, and the rest don't much care. It's problematic to call it a right, which is why it's done this way. No one is suffering for it either. Look at how our country depends on this "privilege" and imagine the suffering, loss of quality of life, loss of access to food, medicine, etc - a lifeline of dependency on this privilege. The word doesn't fail to deliver, it protects the real nature of rights while providing for the general welfare. EXACTLY what any kind of universal healthcare is.

 

I could see it as a moral imperative, or "existential requirement". I agree with that. I don't know how many posts I need to repeat my support of some kind of universal approach before it's accepted. I'll guess I'll just keep repeating it until I get tired. I'm on board for a humane, equal access, universal approach to medical care here.

 

I'm not even sure liposuction or breat implants shouldn't be included. After all, I'm demanding something new and better, and without a paradigm shift, that's not going to happen.

[Pangloss]

I could see it as a moral imperative, or "existential requirement". I agree with that. I don't know how many posts I need to repeat my support of some kind of universal approach before it's accepted. I'll guess I'll just keep repeating it until I get tired. I'm on board for a humane, equal access, universal approach to medical care here.

 

I'm not even sure liposuction or breat implants shouldn't be included. After all, I'm demanding something new and better, and without a paradigm shift, that's not going to happen.

 

I don't accept it as something I should provide because people need it. I might ultimately accept having money taken from me and used to provide the same health care to all because it may make society better for me (through the mechanism of the economy from healthy workers). But not because of any moral high ground argument, because I don't accept that it's morally superior to take something from one person and give it to another because they need it (or "existentially require" it).

 

That is, of course, simply my personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[jackson33]

John; I will get attacked for going off topic, but feel the need to address your premise of US Health Care and statistical averages. Hopefully it links into UHC not being practical for the US...

 

If I understand you, any person in Australia from anyplace on the planet is going to receive paid care, by the State and you pay a portion of those cost through taxes. What happens if I charter a plane from LA to Sydney, with 300

patience needing some costly service hard to get in the US? What if a Chinese person or Indian did the same from their country and so on...Are you suggesting this should be the norm for any ailment and/or the responsibility for every Nation to the rest of the world. I don't think so...

 

On any given day in the US, the entire population of Australia (about 21M) is visiting or in the US, traveling, for political reasons (diplomats), doing business, education/school, shopping, working (legal/illegally) or for any number of reasons. Additionally there may be hundreds of thousands that are here for paid medical treatment or where like treatment is not available, at home location.

 

As for your statistics and I argue this point endlessly; The US more so than anyplace on this earth is a diverse society and made up of 50 individuals States each with very different medical systems and/or demographics. If you pick one stat, say longevity, I'll find one to multiple States with the highest rated stat for that category. Blacks for instance live on average 73 years and the men less than 70, where white women live 80 years. However Blacks live on average 30+ years longer than many African averages and Oriental Women live on average 89 years in the US, far above Asian averages. We have societies here, that will not go to a doctor for any reason (Christan Scientist) and others that practice any number of alternative medicine. Suicide, auto accidents and hundreds of human activity ways of life or work related all factor into what determines longevity and the US is incredibly accurate on compiling statistics than most every country.

 

Rather than argue this I'll just ask; If you were 18-22, with a good educational record and checking out career possibilities. would you commit to an additional 10 years or more (At least 4-6 years medical school plus specialty if desired, plus no less than 6 years internship in a medical facility) for a shot/chance of earning the average 200k annual compensation and the threat over the past 20-30 years of working under Federal Government rules and the known cost of practice liability or become a lawyer or some other profession???

 

iNow, no one in the US is forced to choose between Health Care Food or for that matter shelter, utilities or a number of essentials. They may have to choose between a boat, new car, vacation and buying insurance, but thats about it...

 

Getting right to the problem; The cost of any service, if set by the market will reduce itself (if allowed) to what the public can afford. If the cost were affordable to the total the cost would naturally rise or as described, the extent of coverage would increase. Auto insurance, in the US is the best example of how the system works and would add as essential to as HC in the US. For those that have no means to afford or become a burden/liability on the system, some State governments requires Auto Insurance Companies to reduce rates (risk drivers may increase rates, but accessible), increasing the cost to the rest, BUT does not furnish. Another would be life insurance, which is really cheap for a 20-50 yo and government is not involved in any way.

[iNow]

iNow, no one in the US is forced to choose between Health Care Food or for that matter shelter, utilities or a number of essentials. They may have to choose between a boat, new car, vacation and buying insurance, but thats about it...

 

Bullshit, as evidenced by the link which prompted this thread, as shared in the OP. You know that simply asserting something doesn't make it true, don't you Jackson?

 

Your posts trouble me. They are hardly ever related to the discussion, rarely if ever represent the reality being discussed, and are incoherent, poorly articulated, and show the spelling ability of an elementary school student.

 

Either way, the quoted bit is plainly, simply, and completely wrong. Your incredulity is not a valid argument against the reality being discussed here in this thread.

[Pangloss]

Tone it down, please. I think he was just generalizing and went too far, and he has said that he's trying to be more coherent in his posting language.

 

Personally I am someone who comes from the same perspective as jackson33 regarding the playstations-versus-food argument, and you all will likely remember my whole census-based argument about the "poverty line", but I agree with you that there ARE homeless people in this country and there ARE people deciding between health care and rent. The better question he might have leveled is how many of them there are and how significant their problems are in terms of getting them fixed, or perhaps asking whether it's our obligation to fix them. But I agree that denying there are ANY is inaccurate -- you've provided evidence to that effect, and he's required to either counter that evidence or not make factual statements to the contrary; those are our rules, and I support your pointing them out. (Just be nicer about it... please?)

 

Given the accuracy of our discussions here I believe that kind of distinction is not only important, it's actually better for the debate. We have higher level discussions here about such things because we hold the bar higher. Good on us.

[jackson33]

Bullshit, as evidenced by the link which prompted this thread, as shared in the OP. You know that simply asserting something doesn't make it true, don't you Jackson?

 

Your posts trouble me. They are hardly ever related to the discussion, rarely if ever represent the reality being discussed, and are incoherent, poorly articulated, and show the spelling ability of an elementary school student.

 

Either way, the quoted bit is plainly, simply, and completely wrong. Your incredulity is not a valid argument against the reality being discussed here in this thread.

 

If I understand your position correctly, your basically adding to the problem that created the problem in the first place. To me this makes no sense and attempting to correct the original error should be the alternative answer.

 

Health Care has not always been a problem in the US and highly regarded around the world for years. Medicare under SS, was for the most part an alternative to retirement packages or personal insurance, which was competitive with MC cost.

 

There has been a two fold problem IMO that created the inflation of HC cost.

One unquestionable cost has come from legal actions, generally class action against the industry as a whole. Some medical procedure, some medicine or some personal grievance against a hospital, doctor or both that generates millions/billions for some dissatisfied patien/group. This now has come to hundreds of test being performed on some possible minor problem at tremendous cost to both insurance cost and the consumer (strain on desire). Then along came government and mandating of unrealistic requirements on the industry. Pharmaceutical Companies are required years of testing, sometimes billions in cost and often denied approval for some possible or potential side effect, which has never proved to be preventable to every person, in the first place.

Then since the early 1990's the entire medical system has been under attack, by our medically educated Congress and the people trying to solve a problem they have no business addressing. I won't bother you with the hundreds of medical facilities that have gone bankrupt or physicians who have gone specialty, dropped out altogether or the strain on the remaining. Solve the problem that created the problems if you like, but adding to it based on some very problematic systems around the world seems a bit over reactive. All I've seen here on this issue is a worldwide health care system, where nobody pays for anything and somehow we will save money. Sorry if that makes sense to anyone, but I don't buy it...

 

As for my post; As I wrote to John, I felt his statistical analysis of and the assumption of the US HC was inaccurate at best. I don't like using International statistics to judge National performance for all the obvious reasons. Massachusetts system is already failing and tort law limitations in NC are creating a flood of Doctor moving into the State. This is a very deep subject and I have no idea how you expect it to follow such a narrow path with all UHC implies, from a starting point or not. Aside from that my post to you were in answer to your statements, if off topic.

[iNow]

there ARE homeless people in this country and there ARE people deciding between health care and rent.

It's not just the homeless, and the people being forced to make the "rent/food/healtcare" choices are ever growing, ever increasing, and deserving of a legitimate attempt by us to find solutions.

 

I know you agree, so let's just say that your point was QFT.

 

 

Existential requirement.

Moral obligation.

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

 

 

It's time for us to put this argument in its proper context, and openly acknowledge that debt and financial ruin induced by medical costs is not simply to be labeled as some fault created by poor individual planning or laziness.

 

If people wish to keep asserting that the US is the greatest nation on earth (which I personally find terribly humorous and to be a weak call to some false ungrounded sense of patriotism), then it's time that they stand up and fight for changes to our system and a more encompassing approach to healthcare for our populace. It is those actions alone which have a snowballs chance in hell at making such nationalistic and patriotic sentiments/assertions reasonable or valid.

 

 

Btw Jackson - Please try to learn the difference between "your" and "you're." As per the rest of your points, you are still arguing some pretend reality, and your comments fail on all levels to address the issues being put forth. I will remind you of my point to Pangloss on the previous page, which he himself has acknowledged to be valid and important. Your discussion about costs heartily misses the heart of the issue, whereby there are countless people who are broke precisely because they got sick. How does lower costs help them if they're already in debt from caring for their health? The simple truth is that it does not.

Edited April 4, 2009 by iNow

[Mokele]

Something that also bears thinking about - a lot of people have chronic conditions that can cost quite a lot, and if you suddenly wind up without healthcare (such as due to loss of a job), those costs add up fast.

 

Consider my wife, who has two common ailments - serious asthma and coeliac (she can't eat wheat). Were I to lose my health insurance, the former would cost us over $150 per month, and the latter easily doubles our food bill. Neither can be cured, nor can treatment lapse even for a moment. And plenty of other people have chronic ailments that cost a LOT more. HIV treatment can easily come to hundreds of dollars per month. Psych meds aren't cheap, neither is everything you need for diabetes. All of these range from 1% to over 5% of the population, and overall psych disorders have a lifetime prevalence of about 20%.

[ParanoiA]

I feel for you, seriously. We were talking about this at work today and there is no shortage of horror stories right now, about people losing their jobs, and then their insurance, while suffering from lifelong ailments. Apparently some are even being denied coverage when they attempt to purchase it on their own. This is a horrible consequence to the employer provided health insurance system we've created.

 

We're entirely dependent on top teir business ****ers to decide what network of care we're going to get and the price structure, and we just have to take it.

 

Alternatively if we all switched, overnight, to buying our own health insurance, a good portion of us would not be able to afford the premium due to chronic conditions driving the price a hell of a lot more than even 150 bucks. And then a good portion of those may not qualify at all.

 

Doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room.

[Pangloss]

I still haven't watched this; it's sitting on my Tivo. Did they actually go beyond singular cases of people who ran out of money, and actually show statistical analysis of how many people that's happening too, what percentage of the population that is, how much it costs the system, etc?

 

iNow, that's a nice moral argument -- the closest I think I've ever seen you come to the pulpit! Such things don't carry a lot of weight with me, but it was nicely put.

 

At the moment I'm more concerned about the fact that in order to balance the budget they're going to have to take twice as much money as they're taking right now. For starters. In my opinion, fix the economy, balance the budget, and fix the health care COSTS issue, and then we can look at whether we can afford the "moral obligation" of universal coverage.

[iNow]

In the spirit of full disclosure...

 

I am an insulin-dependent Type 1 (juvenile) diabetic.

Without my medications, I die... and I die soon, with a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.

I am an industrious, hard working, and talented man who is bright and far from lazy.

I have had the unfortunate experience of losing my job, and hence my health coverage... for almost a full year.

I have had to choose between eating and buying my insulin, and paying rent or making a payment to ensure my cobra didn't lapse.

I consider myself fortunate that I am not yet a father, as that would have further complicated matters had I needed to further worry about the care and well-being of a dependent.

 

I've got skin in the game, as this experience is very real to me, and not some mere academic exercise. I'm tired of people who have had the silver spoon in their mouths for countless years, or who have been lucky enough to avoid chronic health issues or loss of coverage, trying to tell ME how hard work and our emergency rooms alone are sufficient to ensure quality of life, or the mere continuation of it, when health matters are involved... Or, when they try to tell me how the system we've got now is troubled, but still represents the correct approach to the issue and that we should maintain it.

 

I got lucky and found a job before the economy tanked. Others aren't as fortunate. It's repugnant to me that we let this situation continue and that so many people keep addressing the issue as merely an economic one.

 

 

With all of that said, I think the non-emotionally based arguments being presented in favor of universal coverage are still strong enough to support my contention that we should have it, and I have yet to see anything more than a cold heart and uninformed opinion supporting arguments to the contrary.

Edited April 5, 2009 by iNow

[Mokele]

Did they actually go beyond singular cases of people who ran out of money, and actually show statistical analysis of how many people that's happening too, what percentage of the population that is, how much it costs the system, etc?

 

Not from the documentary, and not direct, but over half of US bankruptcies are driven by medical debts.

[The Bear's Key]

Socialism....

entitlement...

 

Words used by pundits to dismiss any constructive solution which threaten gluttonous profits (usually made at our expense), and which might be seen as dismissive here.

 

I recommend that we also investigate the "socialism" of different nations personally, instead of relying on what the ideologists of either side tell us -- and who probably never stepped foot in the relevant nations (and if they had stepped foot, probably didn't stay long enough, or just wore their ideological blinders to filter out reality).

 

Let's get input from unbiased people in nations with high levels of socialized medicine. Like Canada, France, Norway, etc. The internet is our friend, and has worldwide (instant) reach.

 

Things might seem obvious to us, like a cause-and-effect problem with a logically relevant solution, but due to the unaccounted variables in complex systems, 1+1 doesn't always equal 2 when it comes to social tendencies and outcomes.

 

Let's learn from the best known methods of these other nations who manage to do this successfully and take the most useful parts from each so we can make it work here.

That's an excellent suggestion. And it works for so many other things in need of problem-solving. Obviously what's good in one place isn't necessarily so in another, but certain solutions are more *universal* and beneficial than others.

 

i.e. Why is MJ not as much a teen problem in Amsterdam, where it's legal? Or, why isn't alchohol as much of a teen problem in nations where 15 year olds can purchase it for their dads?

 

Variables are the key.

 

I feel no moral obligation to provide health care to able bodied adults or their dependents.

A seriously ill person isn't able-bodied.

 

You see, I don't think I am entitled to the necessities of life.

But you are entitled to complain when the results of neglecting society's upkeep comes knocking at our doors. Yes, there is a price -- a healthy and thriving society doesn't come free. Paying to keep the infrastructure maximized for optimal levels of spenders, workers, owners, and enjoyers of life in the good ol' U.S (which includes the ability to travel elsewhere and learn).

 

Not everyone's inborn foundation is built the same. Many people are born with the qualities to be highly independent and tackling problems head-on, so even when growing up under abusive, broken, or poor conditions, they often still have a better chance of managing life than people with an inborn rickety foundation who grew up in a more upscale enironment.

 

Others are possibly born to listen to commentators who lull and quiet their conscience, after a vote for dark-hearted agents posing as hard-work defenders, then complain when the societal impact comes biting at their ass (yet will blame it again on the casualties, not the instigators).

 

If we don't fix the system before enacting an entitlement then my concern is that the system will become almost impossible to repair. A perfect example of this is the way the entitlement of Medicare -- which we cannot change without a massive and incredibly unpopular intervention -- allows drug companies to charge the US taxpayer for their profit margin (R&D, marketing, and pure profit) and then give discounted drugs to Canada and other customers.

.....

Make health care an entitlement without fixing the problem and the same thing would happen -- massive profits guaranteed by law, with no ability to change anything without a massive and incredibly unpopular intervention.

I don't see how stopping drug companies from charging the US taxpayer for their profit margin (R&D, marketing, and pure profit) would be incredibly unpopular.

 

It's not just medicare on the side of entitelement, but also the companies themselves. Do we get wholesale prices? Or loopholes that force our taxes up?

 

 

Testimony on Medicare about how it's being regularly overcharged.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20060928003712/http://www3.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/testimony.asp?Counter=612

Medicare now pays more than many other purchasers for the drugs we cover due to the way that drug manufacturers report their prices and Medicare's payment policies. Medicare should pay appropriately for all Medicare benefits, including the drugs we currently cover, and it is unacceptable that the current system results in Medicare paying excessive prices.

.....

Numerous studies have indicated that the industry's reported wholesale prices, the data on which Medicare payments are based, are vastly higher than the amounts that drug manufacturers and wholesalers actually charge providers. That means Medicare beneficiaries, through their premiums and cost sharing, and U.S. taxpayers are spending far more than the "average" price that we believe the law intended them to pay.

.....

We must find a competitive way to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries and taxpayers are no longer paying excessive prices for drugs that are far above the competitive discounts that are widely available today.

 

 

From Health Affairs.

 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1

In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy.

.....

Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs averaged $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage.

 

 

An interesting opinion piece.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html

How did illness bankrupt middle-class Americans with health insurance? For some, high co-payments, deductibles, exclusions from coverage and other loopholes left them holding the bag for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs when serious illness struck.

...

Too sick to work, they suddenly lost their jobs. With the jobs went most of their income and their health insurance -- a quarter of all employers cancel coverage the day you leave work because of a disabling illness; another quarter do so in less than a year.

.....

Health insurance isn't an on-off switch, giving full protection to everyone who has it. There is real coverage and there is faux coverage. Policies that can be canceled when you need them most are often useless.

Edited April 5, 2009 by The Bear's Key
error handling -- whooops ;)

[CharonY]

Something that also bears thinking about - a lot of people have chronic conditions that can cost quite a lot' date=' and if you suddenly wind up without healthcare (such as due to loss of a job), those costs add up fast.

[/quote']

 

And even if you got a job you may not be able to afford it. I vented my anger about a particular case (happened to be a colleague) who essentially is not able to get health insurance due to precondition (actually due to suspicion of of a precondition)The only one that were going to take her in were so expensive that she would not be able to afford rent. For the record, we are talking about someone on a postdoc salary who is not insured by the employer due to the nature of her grants. And given the fact that she likely has to visit MDs repetitively paying out of her own pocket is not an option (not that she is able to get a timely appointment here even though atm she is still insured).

[Pangloss]

Without my medications, I die... and I die soon, with a lot of unnecessary pain and suffering.

I am an industrious, hard working, and talented man who is bright and far from lazy.

 

A perfect example of why safety nets are a good idea. I'm not only okay with my money (that was taken from me by force) being spent to help people who are down on their luck but who are otherwise perfectly capable and industrious people, I insist on it. Just speaking for myself, of course, but it's only the concept of automatic, assumed benefits, and the idea that this is a moral good (without a moral cost), that I actually object to.

 

Modern society in a nutshell: Robbing Peter to pay Paul is okay so long as it also gives Peter a tangible benefit that he could not otherwise obtain.

 

You chart a course that fixes costs and monitors/regulates expenses so that the insurance industry can't double the federal budget every five years through a massive new entitlement program that my congressman can't even touch, and I'll not only be on board, I'll be standing on the caboose and waving the signal flag.

[JohnB]

As for your statistics and I argue this point endlessly; The US more so than anyplace on this earth is a diverse society and made up of 50 individuals States each with very different medical systems and/or demographics. If you pick one stat, say longevity, I'll find one to multiple States with the highest rated stat for that category. Blacks for instance live on average 73 years and the men less than 70, where white women live 80 years. However Blacks live on average 30+ years longer than many African averages and Oriental Women live on average 89 years in the US, far above Asian averages. We have societies here, that will not go to a doctor for any reason (Christan Scientist) and others that practice any number of alternative medicine. Suicide, auto accidents and hundreds of human activity ways of life or work related all factor into what determines longevity and the US is incredibly accurate on compiling statistics than most every country.

Strawman. Do you think the Australian population is homogenous? Sectors of our society come in above the average and sectors come in at below the average. That's why it's an average. Trying to show that some sectors are above average misses the point.

 

Whether you like the stats or not, the simple fact is that the US has arguably the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Your infant mortality rate is nearly 50% higher than ours and would be the highest in the developed world.

 

Let's look at some other figures, shall we? A report quoted in the LA Times in 2005 found that when comparing the US to the average of other developed nations there were:

* 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 Americans, compared with a median of 3.7 per 1,000 residents in the other countries;

 

* 2.4 physicians per 1,000 Americans (in 2001), compared with 3.1 per 1,000 elsewhere in 2002;

 

* 7.9 nurses per 1,000 Americans (in 2001), compared with 8.9 nurses per 1,000 elsewhere in 2002;

 

* 12.8 CT scanners per million Americans (in 2001), compared with 13.3 per million elsewhere in 2002.

 

Nationmaster has some figures for spending per capita as of 2002.

US: 4,271

Denmark: 2,785

Sweden: 2,145

Austria: 2,121

Australia: 1,714

United Kingdom: 1,675

 

So the fact is that you spend twice what we do to have higher infant mortality, less doctors, less nurses, less hospital beds, less access to quality healthcare and a lower life expectancy.

Rather than argue this I'll just ask; If you were 18-22, with a good educational record and checking out career possibilities. would you commit to an additional 10 years or more (At least 4-6 years medical school plus specialty if desired, plus no less than 6 years internship in a medical facility) for a shot/chance of earning the average 200k annual compensation and the threat over the past 20-30 years of working under Federal Government rules and the known cost of practice liability or become a lawyer or some other profession???

What is your point?

 

However, I do wonder if I've misrepresented the Australian system, taking some things for granted that aren't obvious to those in the US.

 

We do have UHC, paid for by a Federal Tax. For this I get basic medical and a number of prescription drugs paid for. Treatment in a public hospital is free. If I go to the local GP for a consult Medicare will give me back (I think it's $40) of whatever he charges me. So if the consult fee is $50, I pay that and get $40 back. If the fee is $70, I still only get $40 back. Doctors can charge what they want, but the rebate stays the same.

 

If I require the services of a specialist for consult, I go to the GP and get the referral for the specialist and make the appointment. Noting that I copay for the initial consult and the specialist consult.

 

If I required a hip replacement, I would go on the waiting list. Waiting list is bad, but is generally not caused by lack of funds per se. There is a limit to how many operations an OR can perform in day. Just throwing more money at the problem doesn't work, unless it's to extend OR hours. Now under the public system the surgeon who does the op will be the one that is there. It's not that I would have to wait for a particular Dr, it's more a case of waiting for the OR. Also don't forget that hospitals like to have at least one OR free at any time to cope with car accidents or other emergencies.

 

Now I can have private cover too. Basically this would allow me to have my elective in a Private Hospital with the Surgeon/Specialist of my choice. Big woop, the Drs are of roughly the same abilities and competance so I don't see the point.

 

Diagnostic Imaging is done in hospitals and at private clinics around the place. (Most hospitals, both public and private have DI centres, but there are also a number of private enterprise clinics that do it too.) Last year I wanted a CT scan of my lumbar region. I went to the GP and got the referral. I then phoned around to see who could fit me in (There are 5 places within a 30 minute city drive) and got the appointment for the next day. I got the scan, paid $400 and walked out. The results were at my Drs in 48 hours. Note that because I wanted the scan, I got nothing back from the UHC system.

 

So we actually have a mix. There is nothing to stop a Dr in a public hospital from opening a private practice, and the UHC doesn't pay for everything all the time.

 

Even a private insurance system can be rorted too. Let's say a woman wanted a boob job. There is nothing to stop her taking private insurance, waiting a year, having the boob job and then dropping the private cover.

Massachusetts system is already failing and tort law limitations in NC are creating a flood of Doctor moving into the State.

Maybe if you started acting like one nation instead of a loose confederation of states, you wouldn't have the problem.

 

While we're at it, let's put another furphy to rest. Going back to the study reported in the LA Times, it found the cost of malpractice suits to be less in the US than elsewhere with the averages being:

US: $265,103

Canada: $309,417

United Kingdom: $411,171

All figures in 2002 US dollars.

 

There has been much talk on the Right/Privilage bit. I suggest that UHC is neither. It is a benefit of living in an advanced society. In exactly the same way that access to relatively uncorrupt police and judges is. In the same way that have a local fire service is. The same as having choice in the supermarket is. These are benefits of living in our societies.

 

How many people realise that when they go to the supermarket and pick and choose their potatoes, that most people in most nations don't have this choice? The retailer chooses for them. There are many benefits we in the first world have simply because we live where we do. I firmly believe UHC is one of them.

That's an excellent suggestion. And it works for so many other things in need of problem-solving. Obviously what's good in one place isn't necessarily so in another, but certain solutions are more *universal* and beneficial than others.

TBH, I think you should look long and hard at the Australian system. When first introduced some 25-30 years ago it was woeful. Introduced by a leftist gov for ideological reasons and based on the Canadian system that was well on the way to failure way back then. Since then we have worked on it.

 

The systems used in many nations wouldn't suit you because of the large area of the US. Only Canada and Australia match you for size in the first world. Since our areas and societies are similar, I think these two would be the first ones to look at.

 

Is our system perfect? No, of course not. But, and it's a big but, we are getting better results that you are and only spending 1/3 to 1/2 what you are per capita.

 

Guys, if we can make it work with a piddly 21 million people covering the same area as the US, imagine what you could do. Our Federal gov spent A$34 billion last year on health, you have 10 times our population so that would be $340 billion. What did you pay? $2.1 Trillion? You're being scammed, big time.

 

One more point on the whole "socialist" thing. My home state Queensland had UHC long before the rest of Australia. It was brought in by our Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen. Any Aussie can tell you that the last thing his name could ever possibly be associated with is "socialism". It was quite clever really, we have a state lottery, the Golden Casket, (it's now nation wide) and as everybody knows Aussie like a bet. So all the profits from the casket went to pay for our free hospital system. Pretty well ran itself.

 

The bottom line is that there are already systems out there that deliver better results for less cost than you are currently getting. You could let Congress fiddle away and have "Enquiries" into what you should do and how you might modify them to suit your needs, but even without modification they're already better.

 

Introduce one and tinker with it later, you'll still come out in front. Like I said, it's a benefit of living in the first world, just like choosing potatoes is.

Edited April 5, 2009 by JohnB

[ecoli]

@JohnB - The question isn't is our health care system sucks. Everyone hates it.

 

The problem is we have some half-assed compromise between the 'socialists' and the 'libertarians' (which sucks more than either of those two options alone) while the insurance company lobbyists are really pulling the politicians strings.

 

The outcome is a situation where the maximum benefit is for the industry, and not consumers.

 

I think a completely free and a completely universal health care system both have their merits (I might be the only one who thinks so) especially over the current scenario.

 

In a universal system you solve the problem of denying coverage, etc make making sure that everyone has it.

 

However, the problem with this system is that you get problems with innovation, consumer choice, economic freedom (through much higher taxes) etc. These are problems we've seen in other countries and I think are unavoidable and undesirable.

 

However, I still think universal coverage is better than the pseudo-monopolies that the insurance companies currently have. At least if its universal care, and the system winds up not working, you know who to blame. When you have mixed care, and the socialized functions aren't working, the politicians are free to blame the private care and people get confused. And, of course, having access to government care if you need it, is better than having no care at all (usually).

 

 

Of course, the benefit of completely privatized care is more consumer choices, wider coverage for more people, more economic freedom, less bureaucrats in control of medical decisions... the list goes on.

 

 

This is not to say that governments can't give good care. I know people who are on medicare who are quite happy.

 

However, I believe that over a longer timeline, private systems are more adaptable, actively producing new technologies, lowering costs, increasing coverage. While government-run providers resist technological change because it raises costs, prevent cost-lowering competition and innovation and offer 100% of the same shoddy care to everyone. (I can link to a bunch of CATO policy reports that provide empirical evidence to as much).

 

Also, if anyone says "healthcare is a right" I'm going to punch you in the face.