Universal health care

[memphis]

First, the governement already pays for a large number (don't have the precise figure, sorry) through Medicaid and Medicare. Second, I'm not so convinced that private insurance companies are doing such a great job as the "transfer agent." Anyhow, my mind is not made up on the healthcare debate. It's really a tough issue. I just think it's smug and cruel to deny access to health care.

[TheresNoMoney]

Second, the person who writes the checks calls the shots, and since government would be writing the checks, it would be calling the shots.  I don't think too many people would like the result, honestly, based upon other areas where government has controlled things.  I have no faith.

That's unfortunate you have such little faith.

But in reality, the proof is in the pudding. Medicare/Medicaid delivers health care much more efficiently and for a smaller cost. Administrative costs for Medicare/Medicaid are approximately 3% while private health insurance has adminstrative costs of approximately 25% (some go up to 30%). The health insurance industry is one of the most wasteful and inefficient industries in the world and the governmental health programs have clearly outperformed them.

[Emsworth]

I just think it's smug and cruel to deny access to health care.

Libertarians are not banning people from accessing healthcare. That would undoubtedly be cruel. Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

[useful idiot]

I believe universal healthcare should only be implemented in countries that can take it. It's a good idea in a place like Sweden or the UK, but a bad idea in places like the USA or Brazil or Russia. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

[memphis]

I believe universal healthcare should only be implemented in countries that can take it. It's a good idea in a place like Sweden or the UK, but a bad idea in places like the USA or Brazil or Russia. You have to take it on a case by case basis.

Please explain why you think that it is good for some countries but bad for others. What distinguishes the US from the UK, for instance?

[useful idiot]

In the U.S. there is a much larger gap between the rich and the poor, and a large segment of the population that doesn't pay taxes, including illegals. The U.S. would also have an extreme shortage of doctors because of it's very large population and because of the fact that most people in the US become doctors to make money, whereas people in Europe are more community-oriented and become doctors to help people. The larger the gap is the worse off the system will be. In Brazil for instance we have universal healthcare. No person that makes any kind of decent money would dream of visiting a public hospital, yet they are over-crowded and understaffed.

I would answer your question more in depth but it's late here.

[TheresNoMoney]

In the U.S. there is a much larger gap between the rich and the poor, and a large segment of the population that doesn't pay taxes, including illegals. The U.S. would also have an extreme shortage of doctors because of it's very large population and because of the fact that most people in the US become doctors to make money, whereas people in Europe are more community-oriented and become doctors to help people.

I think universal health care would be a huge factor in helping to bridge the gap between rich and poor in the U.S. And it could certainly be done (by way of a single-payer system) without cutting doctor's salaries or quality of care.

[memphis]

I refute that a large percentage of the population doesn't pay taxes. Everybody pays taxes of some sort. If you buy a loaf of bread, you pay sales tax. No matter how little you make, you pay Social Security taxes. It's only on income taxes that the very poor catch a break. I also disagree that most American doctors have chosen their occupation for the money. Most doctors are passionate about what they do. You have to be to get through the rigorous schooling that they have endured.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Does anyone force you to have health insurance?

If you go to or work at a university then yes.

[GOP = Terrorists]

Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

Yet oddly it is okay to steal my money to kill Iraqis... Hmmm

[GOP = Terrorists]

I was for a hybridesque Clinton-Kerry system.  I could easily be talked into a single payer system. 

But I'm essentially a socialist...

I'm shocked to see a single payer system at 50/50 split considering this site tends to have very conservative Democrats...

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

Yet oddly it is okay to steal my money to kill Iraqis... Hmmm

Please change your country to France immediately.

[The Duke]

People keep saying the government is incomeptent in delivering goods, but today most people get health care from corporations, which are ill suited to the task and have proven incapable of delivering adequate health care.

Why all this animosity towards government when the greatest failures of our current sysytem are that we've asked corporations to provide for people's health care and corporation by their nature have proven incapable of doing the job?  By all rights, they never should have been asked to provide helath care, they're not built to do that, they're built to turn a profit, it makes no sense to have this massive private sector welfare state as the recent collapse of GM demonstrates.

A national, universal, health care voucher would allow us to keep the management of health care in the private sector without burdening businesses with the role of nanny state and it would provide universal insurance which is the only effective kind of insurance.  It preserves the free market while still ensuring a basic safety net for everyone.

[??????????]

People keep saying the government is incomeptent in delivering goods, but today most people get health care from corporations, which are ill suited to the task and have proven incapable of delivering adequate health care.

Why all this animosity towards government when the greatest failures of our current sysytem are that we've asked corporations to provide for people's health care and corporation by their nature have proven incapable of doing the job?  By all rights, they never should have been asked to provide helath care, they're not built to do that, they're built to turn a profit, it makes no sense to have this massive private sector welfare state as the recent collapse of GM demonstrates.

A national, universal, health care voucher would allow us to keep the management of health care in the private sector without burdening businesses with the role of nanny state and it would provide universal insurance which is the only effective kind of insurance.  It preserves the free market while still ensuring a basic safety net for everyone.

Would this prevent the government from determining if our actions are "healthy" or "unhealthy" or is that just "a risk we'd have to take" with such a program?

[opebo]

I just think it's smug and cruel to deny access to health care.

Libertarians are not banning people from accessing healthcare. That would undoubtedly be cruel. Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

Not so, Emsworth.  How do you think the wealthier classes get the money with which they obtain health care?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

I just think it's smug and cruel to deny access to health care.

Libertarians are not banning people from accessing healthcare. That would undoubtedly be cruel. Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

Not so, Emsworth.  How do you think the wealthier classes get the money with which they obtain health care?

They sell goods and services on a scale sufficient to get rich, of course. This requires the labor of others, but seeing as slavery is illegal they have to pay the laborers, so they aren't stealing anything.

[Emsworth]

Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

Yet oddly it is okay to steal my money to kill Iraqis... Hmmm

Like the Libertarian Party, I oppose the Iraq war, so that point isn't exactly valid.

[David S]

A national, universal, health care voucher would allow us to keep the management of health care in the private sector without burdening businesses with the role of nanny state and it would provide universal insurance which is the only effective kind of insurance.  It preserves the free market while still ensuring a basic safety net for everyone.

How would the voucher work? Would it be the same amount for young people as for geezers? Would it be different for people with pre-existing conditions? How much would the voucher be?

What will you do when the Democrats bring into congress a parade of geezers who all claim that the voucher amount is not enough, their deductables are too high, the copay is too high, and they have to eat dogfood in order to pay their medical bills? The Democrats will accuse the Republicans of being mean-spirited ogres. The Republicans will cave in and say; "no no we aren't mean spirited. We're nice ogres. We're going to give you twice as much as those cheap-skate Democrats".  Then you will end up with the same skyrocketing costs that have plagued the medicare/medicaid system.

BTW I agree business should not be providing healthcare to their employees. That practice started during the FDR era. FDR's wage and price controls prevented compaines from enticing employees with higher wages so they offered healthcare insurance instead.

[The Duke]

States,

I think the voucher's value should be based on age.  If someone wants to be unhealthy the voucher might not cover the quality of care that person wants.  They'd have to augment the voucher out of pocket.  That seems fair to me, that they pay the cost of their own behavior.

David,

The objection you raise is, I think, a political one and not so much a policy one.  In any health care system, there will always be people whose goal is not to provide a safety net, but to provide a cradle-to-grave luxury/welfare state.  They will always use sad stories to justify higher and higher expenditures.

We just have to find politicians responsible enough to say "no".  Every once in a while, they actually come along.

[??????????]

States,

I think the voucher's value should be based on age.  If someone wants to be unhealthy the voucher might not cover the quality of care that person wants.  They'd have to augment the voucher out of pocket.  That seems fair to me, that they pay the cost of their own behavior.

So this person would still have to pay the same amount of tax money for the program and recieve less coverage?

[opebo]

I just think it's smug and cruel to deny access to health care.

Libertarians are not banning people from accessing healthcare. That would undoubtedly be cruel. Rather, we only believe that one is not entitled to steal another's money in order to obtain healthcare.

Not so, Emsworth.  How do you think the wealthier classes get the money with which they obtain health care?

They sell goods and services on a scale sufficient to get rich, of course. This requires the labor of others, but seeing as slavery is illegal they have to pay the laborers, so they aren't stealing anything.

Not so Dibble.  They are placed in their position, and the laborers in theirs by the State, which imposes, and has imposed since its inception, a class heirarhcy.

[The Duke]

States,

I think the voucher's value should be based on age.  If someone wants to be unhealthy the voucher might not cover the quality of care that person wants.  They'd have to augment the voucher out of pocket.  That seems fair to me, that they pay the cost of their own behavior.

So this person would still have to pay the same amount of tax money for the program and recieve less coverage?

The value of the voucher should be the same, but it may no get you as far if you don't take care of yourself.

So this person would still have to pay the same amount of tax money for the program and recieve less coverage?

[GOP = Terrorists]

Like the Libertarian Party, I oppose the Iraq war, so that point isn't exactly valid.

So you feel that taxation for military funding is also stealing?

[Emsworth]

So you feel that taxation for military funding is also stealing?

Strictly speaking, all taxation could be considered stealing. I support taxation for military funding in some circumstances, but oppose it in many others.

It is essential for a nation to maintain a military to defend itself. Funding the military cannot really be avoided, and taxation for this purpose is a necessary evil. Within reasonable limitations, I do not oppose taxing to fund the military. However, I do oppose using the military to perform actions that do not actually involve national defense. For example, the Iraq war was definitely unnecessary.

[David S]

Like the Libertarian Party, I oppose the Iraq war, so that point isn't exactly valid.

So you feel that taxation for military funding is also stealing?

Defense is a constitutional function of our government. Foreign aid, welfare, medicare, medicaid, social security are not. But I agree with Emsworth; defense should be defense and not world's policeman.