Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?
- Thread starter Fuselage
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well, it's not free, but it's better than everyone paying for themselves.
Most people dislike it because they think they're just paying for everyone else to go to hospital, despite the it working out cheaper for them if they do need to go to hospital, and whilst they're "paying for everybody", everybody is also paying for them.
It comes down to whether or not you view healthcare as a right or a privilege, and for me it is undoubtedly the former.
Most people dislike it because they think they're just paying for everyone else to go to hospital, despite the it working out cheaper for them if they do need to go to hospital, and whilst they're "paying for everybody", everybody is also paying for them.
It comes down to whether or not you view healthcare as a right or a privilege, and for me it is undoubtedly the former.
Are you trolling here? did you not say "It's just not economically viable. Every country that has it (except Canada) is either re-examining its implementation or has a nonviable economy."PhiMed said:
On which I send you as list of all countries that have national healthcare of which a large amount of countries are economically viable?
It isn't that they think it's bad. It's that some citizens of other countries, who don't understand things, like to villainize the countries that don't have it. It's the kind of hyper-patriotic bullshit that only the truly stupid and illogical can exhibit.cocoro67 said:
Our stance in the US is that universal health care isn't bad, but it's also not the magic "cure-all" that some people like to think. There are several key problems with applying it to any country, let alone one the size of the US:
1) Population. Look at the populations of GB, Canada, really anything but China and India. We've got a lot more people. That doesn't mean we've got a country of rich people, either, so a tax-funded system has to make each dollar stretch much further... or we have to have the kind of restrictive taxes and governmental policies of places like India and China--I think we can easily see that having "universal health care" hasn't exactly made these places the beacons of human rights and high standard of living.
2) Geography. Our population is spread out over a huge geographical area. This means that we can't get by with a handful of centralized hospitals. There have to be thousands of these stand-alone facilities. If you've got a town of 500 people that's 500 miles from anything else, they still need a full hospital. Unless you want to make them drive 500 miles for emergency medical care, that is.
3) Lots of personal freedoms. You're free to smoke, drink, eat fattening foods, and sit around doing no exercise, if you so choose. Unfortunately, a lot of people here do. These people have demonstrably increased health risks, for which everyone would share the burden--even perfectly healthy people who live a healthy lifestyle. These people, who sometimes are even so obese as to be unable to work (meaning they can also sometimes collect disability), are drawing a disproportionate amount out of the system while paying far less.
4) Cultural issues. One side of the population doesn't feel they should be forced to pay for the poor lifestyle choices of the other half. They'd be fine paying for people who really need it, but they'd want a way to filter out people who are "unhealthy by choice," to ensure the money is going to those who need it. Another side of the population doesn't want universal health care telling them they need to change their eating/smoking/exercise habits... or telling them that they have to pay more because they're fat (or something). Both sides are claiming that personal freedoms are in danger, and only one side can be right on this one.
We don't have nearly the homogeneous cultural landscape that other nations do. They don't realize just how diverse our cultural make-up is here in the States, because they haven't lived here, or they've lived in a single region. Differences are vast. Trying to reconcile all of these into a single model of universal health care--including issues like payment, coverage, and availability--is an immense task.
And there's no reason to believe it's just going to suddenly "fix" anything, either. People citing statistics about how "countries with universal health care have a longer life span" are confusing correlation with causation because it suits their personal bias. I've been in both situations, and let me tell you, I choose private health care reform over a switch to public health care.
Socialized medicine (I won't even say where, so no one gets to feel "safe") nearly killed every member of my family, some more than once. These were in separate incidents. Major health problems were ignored because symptoms were similar to "the flu that's going around." No tests done--they didn't want to spend the money--they just wrote it off and said, "Hey, it's a stomach bug." (In that case, it was appendicitis. Terribly basic, run-of-the-mill issue, completely ignored because it was faster and cheaper.)
My mother has been pregnant eight times. She has three children. Those three? Private hospitals. The other five? Socialized. I'm not going to mix up correlation with causation here, but if nothing else it shows that socialized doesn't equal "guaranteed success," or even "necessarily better."
Exactly. Free healthcare isn't free. It basically means that middle-class people get to pay for healthcare for poor people and wait in line for five years to get a basic check-up. The really interesting thing about free healthcare is that the American government the higher-ups voted that they don't have to use it. They get a normal healthcare plan. Why does this feel fishy?Pirate Kitty said:
Setting aside the fact that (c) and (d) are both irrelevant since GDP isn't solely affected by the country's healthcare system, and that your usage of a reverse ad hominem only helps to diminish any creditability you may have, you're arguing an untenable position based on your own definition of "not economically viable". Healthcare was never meant to serve as a profiteering system, it was made to strengthen the health and social fabric of nations.PhiMed said:
Point (a) has many examples and point (b) is yet another one of your failures to see the difference between causation and correlation. Might it not be so that there's a subtle hint of a financial crisis around the globe right now? Also, an overhaul because of financial considerations doesn't automatically mean that all implementations of a public healthcare system are impossible to sustain.
Nice attempt at a straw man, but no cigar. I said 'principle' not 'morality', hoping this would make it obvious that I was referring to the 'principle' of the matter and not the 'morality'.PhiMed said:
The principle is that it's better for society when we treat life with high respect. This is equal in nature to the principle of free speech, or all men are equal to the law etc. They're not matters of what is right or wrong (i.e. morality) but are accepted rules of conduct in the practice of creating healthy human societies.
The more personal tangent was a clear indicator that a person's current status is a large determining factor in one's political views on the subject. You could have taken it for what it was instead of wetting yourself over it. For example, if you're a doctor making tons of money in private practice then you don't want that job to go away, right?
taxes? lol australia has free health care and what we do have to pay for medical stuff we can get about 50% of it back anyway, it works here as far as i can recall when u start earning to much you must get private health care or get taxed heavily so the free health care is more for the poor and yes it comes out of taxes but its hardly anything but then again that might be because i just dont relise it, as taxes are taken out of our pay automatically then at end of year we try and claim as much of it as we can back.
Dastardly: The EU has a larger population in a similer sized area and yet we manage to have a socilised Health Care system in each country.
I don't know where people get this idea that in America if you show up to a hospital they demand payment before treatment. If you go to the ER bleeding to death they will sew you up before money is even mentioned. I don't begrudge them the costs, medical training is boring and lengthy and everyone trying to sue them doesn't help costs.
Well unfortunately that's just it, people don't want the free health care because of them. The system would boil down to everyone paying extra tax dollars for poor people's health care. Most people already hate their taxes as it is, and they don't want to shell out for people who are already taking from them (welfare). Sure there are some people out there who honestly could use this because they're doing all they can just to make it through, however there are too many people (I personally know two) who would abuse the system and have one less thing they would need to take care of and keep mooching off hard working people.cocoro67 said:
Again Koganesaga this is irrelevant really. If you think people want to live out on the streets by choice its your right but its not actually relevant to healthcare. And if its taxes they complain about. FOR GODS SAKE CUT THE MILITARY BUDGET! Its insane and totally unnecessary as it is right now.
So a few bad apples means that a child should die from an easily curable disease?Koganesaga said:
I'm curious as to how they'd be mooching off hard working people when everyone pays tax?
Everyone pays in, and everyone has a basic level of healthcare, if you're rich enough to afford private healthcare, then great, go use it and free up tax resources for those in need.
I'm not against doctors and other medical staff making a decent wage, but I just also don't feel medicine is a career choice you should go into because you want a ferrari, it's a choice for those who want to help people, like the Police, Fire service, etc. By all means earn a good wage, you've earned it after all the education and training you need.
Unfortunately, the one thing that would reduce medical costs hugely, I can't see a fix for. Stupid lawsuits. The kind of people who are in a drunken car smash, need to have a leg amputated and then sue for the loss of a costly tattoo because they weren't given the choice of if the leg should come off or just be left to die.
When people stop getting tens or hundreds of thousands for suing those who help them, costs could drop significantly. Of course negligence should be punished, but if the doctor tries to save someone, but scars them in the process, you're alive, shut your face and thank him for being alive. Don't make him wish he'd taken that cleaning job 20 years ago.
Everyone pays in, and everyone has a basic level of healthcare, if you're rich enough to afford private healthcare, then great, go use it and free up tax resources for those in need.
I'm not against doctors and other medical staff making a decent wage, but I just also don't feel medicine is a career choice you should go into because you want a ferrari, it's a choice for those who want to help people, like the Police, Fire service, etc. By all means earn a good wage, you've earned it after all the education and training you need.
Unfortunately, the one thing that would reduce medical costs hugely, I can't see a fix for. Stupid lawsuits. The kind of people who are in a drunken car smash, need to have a leg amputated and then sue for the loss of a costly tattoo because they weren't given the choice of if the leg should come off or just be left to die.
When people stop getting tens or hundreds of thousands for suing those who help them, costs could drop significantly. Of course negligence should be punished, but if the doctor tries to save someone, but scars them in the process, you're alive, shut your face and thank him for being alive. Don't make him wish he'd taken that cleaning job 20 years ago.