Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?

[Pillypill]

I've got a bit sick of this "nothings really free" defence, seriously we're all very aware of that fact.

But social healthcare can make treatments that would have otherwise been too expensive to perform on any one person, a reality of (as near as makes no difference) no cost to the patient.

Years ago my brother had his skull broken open (a total of 18 breaks and more than 100 fractures) by some drunk... anyway... the operations took more than a week to complete in total, and the vast majority of them had never been performed by several of the surgeons present (re-atatching optic nerves, removing skull fragments from grey tissue, eye reconstruction etc.) so a surgeon living in the USA was bought out of retirement and flown to the UK in order to perform the very delicate operations.

At a total cost of more than £300,000 to the NHS my brother was put back together, considering that his survival chances were 1 in 80, a lack of feeling in the left temple and a chunk of titanium in his face is a small price to pay.

 

[Icehearted]

I see an awful lot of "not my problem" and "Money before people" arguments, and not nearly as many "medicine is loaded with price fixing" and "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

So the bottom line here are people want to say it's not them so it's not their problem. Comforting to think we care so little about those we depend on so much as the basis for society, civilization, and progress. That we think no stranger is worth saving unless they can save themselves. Comforting to see so many would rather say "oh well" than "let's help". Then again, I've been an American all my life, so in my 36 years I've come to expect no better than this from my people...

 

[Blunderman]

Didn't say it was. I was referring to the "economically viable" portion of the statement people have declared is nonsense. Whether GDP is determined by the health care sector is immaterial. The reason I excluded Canada is because they only nationalize finance, instead of the assets of care.

And you haven't refuted the argument that public healthcare still is economically viable, as opposed to your own claim. Others have responded to this, as well.

and your invention of a new term only reveals your lack of knowledge. If you're accusing me of making an "appeal to authority", then I suppose I'll have to concede that you have a point, but there is no such thing as a "reverse ad hominem" anywhere outside of your imagination.

Do me the honour of excusing that typo. I was referring to an inverse ad hominem, not a reverse one, which is an argument from authority in different words.

I thought the point of health care was to treat the sick. Oh, you mean nationalized health care. Those are some pretty abstract goals. Could you be a little more concrete (i.e. less "bullshitty") than phrases like "social fabric"?

Although it's not really my duty to instruct you in what 'social fabric' means, in this case it refers to the way members of society look at one another. A good 'social fabric' would thus mean that we all treat each others' lives with respect, which is both a result of and a cause of free (i.e. tax-funded) universal healthcare. Such respect would also result in less violent crimes.

In other words, 'social fabric', by definition the mutual respect for the lives of all members of society, is not abstract and certainly not 'bullshitty', and propagating such a notion by keeping healthcare free and universal for everyone is a very concrete suggestion.

Yet another? What was the first one?

Your claim that a low GDP is invariably related to having a universal healthcare system (there are other causes); point (c) in your list of requirements.

You're clearly talking about morality, or if you would prefer ethics. You can call the principles of respect for life, free speech, and equality under the law "accepted rules", but I'm not sure what group you think certified them. Nevermind the fact that most societies don't incorporate them into their structure.

No. Morality is concerned with what is right and wrong. I'm talking about the principles behind a prosperous society, which is not a matter of absolute statements but rather the very pragmatic assessments one can make about social structures from the perspective of a desired outcome, in this case on how to make a good society. The definition of a good western society is one where the people are happy and healthy (in broad terms, I can go into detail should you require it), the second point clearly being a result of a good healthcare system, i.e. a socialised one that is free for everyone.

And straw man? Do you know what that means? Generally speaking, a straw man argument consists of two parts:

1) the establishment of a proxy argument the opposition would ostensibly agree to, then
2) the refutation of that argument, claiming victory despite not addressing the argument.

I said you were arguing something that had nothing to do with my statement. I was talking about economics, and you started talking about "the principle of the thing." These two things may be interrelated, but they are not the same. There is no straw man here. You are just throwing around debate terms you heard from someone else now.

The straw man that came from you was that you claimed I was talking about morality and thus made the conclusion that what I said was irrelevant.

However, I was talking about social principles, one in specific, as part of my argument that the principle matters more than the economics in this regard. I'd already made the point that universal healthcare is economically viable and I went on to include not only arguments from finance but also from a more personal perspective.

Nowhere did I say that universal healthcare is morally right, and as such your attempt to refute my position by claiming that I did is, in fact, a straw man, since I didn't try to refute your economical argument with a non-economical one. I simply stated that although there are financial reasons to not have a universal healthcare system they are overshadowed by a greater need - a society's well-being.

Horseshit. I'm a medical resident, I'm $150,000 in debt from all the education I had to go through in order to get my M.D., and I make less than $60,000/year. Single payer still wouldn't work here, and here's why: the medical industry is too heavily regulated in the U.S., the burden of licensure is too high, and the cost of equipment and supplies is uncontrolled.

I never claimed you were a rich private practice doctor, I simply made the case that if you were, then you would probably be biased against a political reform that would make you lose that nice income.

Naturally, it would take a lot of change to turn the US into a nation with universal healthcare, but that's not saying it's impossible nor that it shouldn't be done.

If your assertion is that the reason health care in the U.S. is so expensive is because doctors are making too much, then you've officially won the "dumbest person in the forum" award.

It isn't, so I guess I lucked out on that one.

I hope you're more polite and respectful with your patients. Now, your attitude is rather abrasive so I'll be stepping out of this discussion.

 

[sir.rutthed]

I think it's important to understand how we Americans as a people think. Ever since we got started, America has been all about making your own way in life and getting by on the sweat of your own brow. This goes at least far back as Ben Franklin, who was probably the ideal "American Man" who could reap the benefits of his own hard work. That's why many of us are against socialized anything, including healthcare and welfare. If other people can get what the same services or way of life as you, for little or no amount of work, that goes against everything we stand for.
That's the American Dream, to be able to work and provide for your family and receive the fruits of your labor. It sucks that many people either can't find or can't perform work, and I think they should be compensated but if you're able you should be out there making your own way in life. With socialist systems, a man doesn't get any added benefit for his extra work, or get any reward for working well. Instead of supporting his family he's supporting the asshole down the line who just sits around all day and doesn't actually work. And you both get the same pay. That just doesn't sit well with a lot of us. Same with free Medicare.
It's an overused argument I know, but nothing is free. We end up paying for it in our tax dollars. In short, along with the people who actually deserve it, we'll also be paying for the morphine junkie's fix, abortions whether we support them or not (maybe not the teen mom's, but if the mother's life is in danger), patching up the drunk who just killed a van full of kids, and the gangsters who got in a shootout. I know these aren't all the people who go to hospitals, but I don't want to pay for their bills anyways.
The way it is isn't working, the healthcare providers have us in a stranglehold. Making it free isn't the answer though. What we need is more free market competition. Break up the monopolies and let the market take care of the rest and we'll be in a fare better position than we're in now and we won't bankrupt the next generation getting there.

 

[Soxafloppin]

Cus i never go to the Doctor and im still paying for it :|

 

[ShadowsofHope]

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.

..Where in the hells of a such a dysfunctional country did you hear this from, exactly? In Canada, we'd like to call this statement by a sweet few words namely "That is bullshit".

 

[mrmash]

The middle class is always the one copping the load.

We pay for the poor and the rich get richer.

Wow, I've really struggled to take you seriously throughout the thread, but that is one of the most foolish and naive things I've seen you post so far. The rich pay taxes, just like you and me. They don't receive preferential treatment and there aren't an infinite number of loopholes for them to play the system. People like you disgust me. "I don't want to pay tax because I don't get any direct benefit - screw those who need it, I'd rather use that money to go see the latest blockbuster this year"

http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/15/pf/taxes/who_pays_most_least/index.htm

 

[Ickorus]

From what I understand from an American friend of mine who doesn't like the idea one of the reasons is because immigrants will get free healthcare without having to pay the taxes.

Something like that.

Im English and I love the NHS, it has it's fair share of problems, sure, but if it didn't exist when I cut my foot open and had to get 8 stitches i'd have had to have DIY'd my foot and when a friend of mine overdosed on paracetamol[footnote]BY ACCIDENT, he was in a lot of pain at the time and wasn't really thinking about the consequences of taking so many at once.[/footnote] he would have died of it because he wouldn't have been able to afford it.

Cus i never go to the Doctor and im still paying for it :|

But one day you will go to the doctor and even if it isn't serious you'll still be paying a crap load for it.

As the saying goes:

It's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

 

[silentrob77]

I live in Ontario, and yes I pay a 13% sales tax, and yes I have to pay higher taxes off my pay cheque, and maybe my wait is a little longer sometimes, but I DON"T have to worry about getting sick and having my family go bankrupt because of it.
I will never have to choose between going to the doctors or eating.

The only thing we ever really need to pay for up here is dental, prescription drugs and optical. And most companies in Canada have a coverage plan for that.

Also our minimum wage (In Ontario anyways) is $10.50 or somewhere around that, and our dollar is currently worth more than the US dollar. So anyone who wants to tell me that because they live in the US and don't pay such high taxes they have a better standard of living can suck it.

 

[Kalfira]

Well to put it in a pithy and brief statement here it is.

1. It's not "free" healthcare, everyone pays for it with their taxes, just like police or roads. Now I cannot speak for others but on top of that I don't really feel like paying for the health care of a 30 year old unemployed welfare user, its not fair to me or him.

2. When you go from private health care to public health care there is approximately a 15-20 year "golden period" where they have the high standards of the private health care but the cheap service of public health care. After this wears of however you get what has happened in many European countries is a HORRIBLE health care system.

3. There is a basic rule of economics that says "You get what you pay for." and it holds true in this situation. If doctors are making half as much money the smart people, who would normally become doctors for the money will, and do a better job at it too, stop to go do other better professions, like be a lawyer. Now while I cannot speak for everyone I am OK with paying doctors well to ensure that I will be around to see Final Fantasy MXI and Call of Duty: Warfare that 60 years ago was modern but is now actually pretty old.

 

[RobCoxxy]

As a Canadian, I'm glad I have it. Too bad we're all poverty stricken and crippled by taxes in this communist dystopia. /lol

Yeah. It's a good thing that the "no subsidized healthcare" policy kept America from being hit by the recession.

Oh aye, but don't forget that you Canadians, us Brits are all commies for it.

 

[Kinokohatake]

If a person in America is below the poverty line, they can get Medicare or Medicaid. It's "free" as in the tax payers are already paying for it. And really the poverty line is set really high, so if you are above it, you should be able to pay for it. If people were aware of what they could get from the government, we wouldn't be having an issue with this.

I am currently on Medicaid because I can't seem to find a job that doesn't involve selling bootleg dvd's or something that I am not good at. And it is a huge hassle. Long waits, ridiculous rules, and the government aspecct is the most frustrating and obnoxious thing I have ever had to deal with. I look forward to the day that I no longer need the government healthcare and can afford the good stuff.

 

[Blind Sight]

Excellent point, a good example is the fact that I smoke. If I get lung cancer, should it be the responsibility of others to pay taxes so I can be treated for my own mistakes? Is it 'morally right' to have other people support me when I knew the risks? I say no, no it is not, I should pay for it myself if the problem arises, it's a problem I created for myself, and thus I should fix it.

You wouldn't happen to be a libertarian, would you? Cause you sure sound like one haha.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying if you don't earn enough, then you don't deserve healthcare, not if you brought the problem upon yourself (a statement I could sort of agree with). His statement is ultra-conservative, not libertarian.

His term 'earn' could relate to both money or hard work however, both of which are present within Objectivism and Libertarianism. His concept of working hard and earning his healthcare rather then just having it handed to him is pretty much a defining characteristic of 'rational self-interest'. Though I do agree that it could be seen as a form of ultra-conservativism, if taken in a less favourable way, but his statement definitely brings to mind John Galt's "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." from Atlas Shrugged (in relation to the other person he quoted, who said that our next step as humans is to become altrustistic).

I was kind of trying to expand that point and establish the concept of responsibility within healthcare as well, one of the problems with a universal healthcare system is that it doesn't exactly promote responsible use of the services you gain.

Because the next step in human behavioral evolution is the altruistic supporting and loving of those who are in need. Even if they will never contribute to society. Who knows? That might be you offering nothing to the whole if your future doesn't go the way you hope for. Depression, injury, any number of things could sabotage your perfect world. Should it be, effectively, a death sentence?

Short answer: Yes.

People should get what they earn, no more and definitely no less. I expect no sympathy, or, more relevantly, aid if, for whatever reason, I can't afford my own healthcare. What I would expect is to do everything I could to work for it, and if that's not enough, so be it.

Excellent point, a good example is the fact that I smoke. If I get lung cancer, should it be the responsibility of others to pay taxes so I can be treated for my own mistakes? Is it 'morally right' to have other people support me when I knew the risks? I say no, no it is not, I should pay for it myself if the problem arises, it's a problem I created for myself, and thus I should fix it.

You wouldn't happen to be a libertarian, would you? Cause you sure sound like one haha.

So yeah, imagine I was just diagnosed with a severe depression, which is no fault of my own, and I don't have the money to pay for therapy or medicine.

Well, you're taking my post out of context to begin with, what I'm saying is that the primary problem with universal healthcare is that it doesn't encourage a system of responsibility towards medicine or your health. There's a reason why there's so many drug-resistant bacteria in this country, because people keep using the system to shove medicine into themselves whenever they have a simple illness. I've also cited several other examples as to why universal healthcare (in Canada at least) needs to be reformed in previous posts, I urge you to actually look at the issues that emerge from this system of healthcare, rather then just use anecdotal evidence. When 10 to 15 people die each year because they were stuck on a waiting list for heart surgery until it was too late, or when Health Canada refuses to even conduct a study on a revolutionary MS treatment the system ain't perfect.

And if we're discussing who's 'fault' your depression is, it's not mine either, so why should I pay for it via taxes as well?

 

[PhiMed]

snip

Well, thank you for so graciously bowing out after placing entire paragraphs in my mouth. Apparently I have constructed entire arguments that I have neither consciously thought nor put to paper or print. How would I know I made these statements without your beneficience?

Also, thank you for instructing the uninitiated as to what constitutes a "good" society. Not what's right and wrong, mind you, but what is "good" and "bad", because there's a HUGE difference. So all those societies that have thus far failed to incorporate the tenets you've dictated (well over three quarters of the societies on earth) are not doing something you believe to be wrong. They are objectively bad societies. Bad, bad societies. How multicultural of you.

And FYI, I'm the most frequently-requested resident on staff in my program.

 

[Vigormortis]

Well, call me a Socialist, but I think doctors should do their job for want of helping people. I know, I know, I have my head in the clouds, but I think the best way to go about things is to allow medical school run at reduced costs and get some more noble doctors out there. The insurance companies wouldn't be such a pain in the ass if the hospitals didn't try to recoup their losses for an X-Ray machine 100 times over.

Actually, if you want to know what really, really drives a lot of the costs up, look at how much a doctor or surgeon has to pay in malpractice insurance fees.

However that pails in comparison with the fact that a Doctor can't even set his or her own price structure without being black-balled by the insurance industry.

That's not entirely true. Flamespeak is right. One of the biggest factors in over-pricing in medical billing is malpractice insurance fees. That's what needs to be addressed first. Not whether or not we should have free health care. Did you know that, even if a doctor or hospital wins a malpractice suit, they're still liable to pay both their AND the prosecutions court fees? That's messed up. There's basically no down-side for someone to frivolously sue a doctor or medical corporation. This needs to be fixed.

 

[Vigormortis]

Damn it. Double post.

This keeps happening. Posts don't show up until I post again. Really getting annoying. :/

 

[wadark]

Money is not infinite. End of story. Free healthcare is great on paper but its fraught with limitations. The US government for instance can't afford to pay for 300 million people worth of healthcare. So who gets it? What does it cover? Who answers these questions?

 

[Agayek]

Are you referring to governments in general or the American government? If it's the former, then you're wrong, I can vouch for the awesomeness of the NHS at least. If it's the latter, how would you know? As far as I'm aware, the US has never had a socialised healthcare system.

The American government has never implemented a system that isn't horribly bloated and inefficient.

You're kidding me, right? America is ranked (iirc)20th in the world for healthcare, behind every country with socialised healthcare.

Actually, American healthcare is some of the best in the world, assuming you can afford it. There's a large percentage of the populace that can't though, which is why it ranks so low.

And it really doesn't seem fair to put a huge bill on someone who just happened to fall ill. The way you phrase that statement in bold makes it seem like you're blaming the victim here. A socialised healthcare system is like healthcare insurance, except everyone's covered. You're paying to make sure that if you or a fellow American fell ill, you'd be treated without any negative repercussions.

It's perfectly fair to put a bill on someone who had the bad luck to fall ill. They're the ones who are sick, no one else has a responsibility or obligation to help them. It's rather ridiculous to pass the bill on to people who are completely uninvolved.

Very liberal use of the slippery slope fallacy there. Are you paranoid? There should be some drugs to fix that.

Nope, just a student of history. Any time a government is given more power , it doesn't relinquish it without a violent uprising, and abuse of power is unfortunately common. Just because it claims to be a good thing doesn't mean it will never be abused.

0.0

You have more than just simple paranoia causing your craziness. I'd suggest you need to see a psychiatrist quick.

You also seem to have huge faith in the horrendously broken, conservative system that runs in America, but that's a different argument.

I have absolutely no faith in the current healthcare system. It needs major reforms, preferably something to do with eliminating, or at least limiting, insurance and the bloated prices it causes.

I just have even less faith in the government. They have yet to establish a system that isn't horribly inefficient and bloated.

Of course there will be an end. Discrimination has been on a steady decline, and with integration between those who are different and a culture that actively goes against those who discriminate, a would with no discrimination looks likely.

Everyone in the world discriminates against someone. It doesn't matter who or what you are, you have innate prejudices against other people. It may be from a range of causes, and it may not even be a bad thing, but I guarantee you do not behave exactly the same when interacting with different people. That means you discriminate. As long as people are different, there will be discrimination, no matter what anyone does.

 

[Agayek]

I guess you don't think it's fair that you pay for the police, even if you don't need them? Or that you might pay for an entire state's worth of roads, but only drive into town everday? After all, you're not using those services, why should you pay for them? Oh, you just pay your taxes and those services are there if you need them? Huh. How do you think nationalised healthcare works, then?

I would be ecstatic if I could get away without paying taxes. As of now, the only thing I really use from taxes is basic infrastructure, and I would gladly pay individually to private companies to provide those services, if it meant I could not pay taxes.

Yes, because that's how healthcare works in all the countries that have it. Or, you know, it's a universal system that treats everyone, even beggars off the street. If you're getting paranoid about government controlling the country through healthcare, maybe you should think about your digital profile, considering it's probable that every bit of your internet traffic is logged somewhere government controlled...

I'm not saying that's how it works. I'm not even saying it's likely to turn out that way. What I'm saying is that it's a very real possibility and we should be wary of it.