Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?

[SaintMorose]

The main argument against free healthcare is what business students (in america) call the "TANSTAAFL" principal. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" the money has to come from somewhere, and becasue it has to come from somewhere, where from?

Seeing as you guys already spend way more per person on health care than any country with a socialized system you should be seeing a decrease in the money each person spends on health care with the system reformed (Though you might see people bringing in over 1.4 million start to pay a little more so that costs for everyone (below that mark) can decrease drastically).

Also American healthcare is a for profit industry. It is also the most inginuitive and groundbreaking healthcare program in the world. Inginuity comes from Research and Development which is very very expensive. What is the motivation for continued advances in medicine if the hard work will lead to no benefit? People are incentivised to maximize benefit, and without incentive for advancement there will be no advancement.

Of course it leads to benefit in other systems people get huge grants, promotions, and raises when they are able to advance our knowledge in medicine. In the US system companies control the funding of that and when they don't see a return in investment they fund less and less.

Unless I'm mistaken and you are arguing for a German/Australian system where insurance companies compete against the basic plan offered by the government to everyone. Which is a great idea, provided the government has a plan for everyone in place.

Free healthcare is not possible or appropriate for America right now. It would be much more prudent to erase one of the major economic lags in the healtcare industry and allow citizens to purchase healthcare from ANY state, not just their home state. Such a restriction limits competition, drives up price, and impedes everyday Americans from getting the services they need. It's unconstitutional if you ask me. More competiton, lower prices, so 50 million Americans don't have to choose healthcare OR groceries.

Healhcare companies love this idea. The ones in States with no additional restrictions on healthcare would run wild. They'd have the same incentives to lower their rates or give additional coverage (and how's that working for you even with increased profits this year rates still skyrocketed). And States would be completely unable to protect their citizens.

Go read up on the insurance lobby; they love this idea and preach it to republicans as if it were a real solution. And so do all the republicans/blue dogs that scream states rights.... Hypocrites all of them.

 

[TheUnstoppableRobman]

Healhcare companies love this idea. The ones in States with no additional restrictions on healthcare would run wild. They'd have the same incentives to lower their rates or give additional coverage (and how's that working for you even with increased profits this year rates still skyrocketed). And States would be completely unable to protect their citizens.Healhcare companies love this idea. The ones in States with no additional restrictions on healthcare would run wild. They'd have the same incentives to lower their rates or give additional coverage (and how's that working for you even with increased profits this year rates still skyrocketed). And States would be completely unable to protect their citizens.

How? How can you justify allowing Americans comepetitionon the Health Insurance market is bad? There is nothing to begained by insurance companies if they have to compete nationwide. That's why by law they don't have to now. That's why insurance lobbists have been fighting that tooth and nail. They don't want that because the system that's in place now is akin to regional customer distribution and price fixing. That's what I'm talking about. The economic lag being referred to is "Lack of Competition" as defined by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" and is one of the four lags on a Capitalist Economy. There is NO WAY that increased competition for insurance could drive insurance costs up. Obviously if more people have health insurance it increases risk of higher Payout Per Insured Unit and most people feel coverage will suffer. But thats like saying theres a cap on insurance and only so many people can have it before it goes bad.Declining coverage for things like co pays, perscriptions, and surgeries will be abated by the possibility of losing customers to a out of state company with better benefits at a better price. Which is how the economy is supposed to work.

 

[Kenko]

Do you want to pay for it?

Money has to come from somewhere.

And if you do, them go to a hospital and start handing out cash.

ninja'd

but yeah and there are a few problems with it

Who gets it?
Whats it cover?
How much will it cost(in taxes)?
will it actually fix anything?

Works in many countries. And usually some of the more expensive operations or surgeries tend to cost a bit of money as well. And the state chipping in on a bit of it and then it depends on your insurance company and whatever insurance you have to help out. Ofcourse, the state and the insurance companies in the US are bloated corrput monstrosities so I dont see that ever happening. As well as americans seem pretty daft when it comes to basic things like "free" healthcare. Ofcourse its not entirely free, EVERYONE chips in on it with taxes. Thus taxes are raised, you get less money in yer pocket but healthcare becomes more affordable for EVERYONE. The better healthcare there is available to more people. The more people you have that are productive that chip in as well.

Same thing goes for "free" education. If its all payed by taxes, then more people can get decent educations (ofcourse there will always be those more prestigious ones you pay more money for to get an even better education.) But the country atleast gets a better base of educated and more productive people.

Ofcourse for a state that leads to other problems like people begin to think for themselves. And the state doesnt want that now does it ? (Depending on the country ofcourse)

 

[feycreature]

First this should be in R&P

Secondly because its EXTREMELY expensive. And as most people know government does a shitty job at running it. So much waste and financial burden on a country.

We need to face it whether you live in the USA which has great quality of medicine and procedures but not coverage

In Canada, the UK or many European countries that have free health care yet you end up waiting a very long time (sometimes too long)

Some people will be left out in the cold.

It is impossible to get everyone the best health care. Life isn't fair and you need to accept that.

The only thing we can rely on is the generosity of others.

I dunno, I'm pretty glad that I can go to the doctor when something is wrong and not worry about it bankrupting my family. We don't have a lot of money, though my mom's one of the hardest-working people I know and if I, say, re-broke my foot, I'd be able to go and get it looked at. I've been able to get regular checkups so I know nothing's slipped past my radar. If I wanted to have a baby it would still set me back, but I wouldn't be paying back the debt long after I've dealt with my student loans.

Yes, there are long lines in waiting rooms. There are also ways of lessening that problem that have nothing to do with funding (mostly allowing Nurse Practitioners to do most everyday medical tasks for which you don't need a doctor.) Either way, since I'M one of the ones who'd get left out in the cold if our health care wasn't publicly funded, somehow I don't have a lot of tears for someone who has to sit in the waiting room for an hour too. We don't get everyone the best health care, but we get everyone some health care.

As for "too long", if you're in real trouble you go to the ER, and hospitals have pretty effective triage systems. If you're in with bronchitis, they're going to treat the people with gushing bullet wounds first. Again, I'm ok with that. Are there no faults to the Canadian healthcare system? Of course there are, there are always flaws.

But we can't rely on the generosity of others. That's why a lot of webcomic artists have day jobs. That's why every winter a bunch of the homeless people here in Toronto freeze to death. That's why I go out busking and sometimes bring back two dollars. If you could rely on the generosity of others I would be able to live off that instead of frantically looking for full-time work. Oh well. The government often does a shitty job of running Transit too. Nonetheless, I'd rather live with a few bugs than be stuck out here in the burbs because I can't afford a car.

As for cost: that's why they put it into the taxes. Spread the cost out over as many people as possible and each individual person will have to pay less while still reaping the benefits. And I doubt there's anyone who can honestly say "nah, I'm never going to have to go to the doctor." Hell, someday we'll all be old and decrepit and I think we'll probably be glad then that we helped to fund the service now diagnosing our cancers.

 

[newwiseman]

Partisan fear mongering,

It was funny as hell when the republicans and Insurance agencies had their expo in Hawaii to combat the possibility of 'free' health care when Obama was pushing reform.

For those of you not aware every citizen of Hawaii gets free health care as part of their state taxes.

 

[ThreeWords]

Money has to come from somewhere.

The money you pay for health insurance becomes the money everyone pays for a collective health insurance.

If it's the price you object to, why do you get health insurance?

 

[SaintMorose]

How? How can you justify allowing Americans comepetitionon the Health Insurance market is bad? There is nothing to begained by insurance companies if they have to compete nationwide. That's why by law they don't have to now. That's why insurance lobbists have been fighting that tooth and nail. They don't want that because the system that's in place now is akin to regional customer distribution and price fixing. That's what I'm talking about. The economic lag being referred to is "Lack of Competition" as defined by Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" and is one of the four lags on a Capitalist Economy. There is NO WAY that increased competition for insurance could drive insurance costs up. Obviously if more people have health insurance it increases risk of higher Payout Per Insured Unit and most people feel coverage will suffer. But thats like saying theres a cap on insurance and only so many people can have it before it goes bad.Declining coverage for things like co pays, perscriptions, and surgeries will be abated by the possibility of losing customers to a out of state company with better benefits at a better price. Which is how the economy is supposed to work.

I'll assume we are ignoring the States rights part of that...

Health Insurance in the States has always been part of the free market if the answer was as simple as competition isn't good enough then why are no newer companies coming up and making huge money under-cutting the current ones? Why are none of the current companies cutting rates while the rest raise them and taking the majority of the market share?

Increasing the competition looks good on paper but the companies are not all held to the same rules. As a result we could easily see companies driven out of business through no fault of their own and a return to monopoly. That's not necessarily a given; however based on the current scene what's to stop it from happening again with so much in it's favor. There's a reason that only one country (of the industrial western nations) thinks its a good idea to trust the "free market" with it's health care (I use quotations as it is not truly a free market when everyone is forced to buy a specific product).

Other reasons to be against it include out-sourcing jobs and consumer spending to another State during a period of high-unemployment; but I won't go into that...

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

It isn't technically free, the money to support it comes from taxes. Still, people get pissy when they have to pay a little more a month, even if it goes towards something good.
The lesson to take away from this is people are morons if they have no legitimate reason to be up in arms about socialized healthcare. Some do have a good reason, but a lot who are vocal against it don't.

 

[thenoblitt]

higher taxes? paying for other peoples stuff? overcrowded hospitals filled with homeless and hypochondriacs who have nothing wrong with them?(well maybe the homeless do)

 

[Ham_authority95]

I recently read the saddest thread I've yet to see on here, I literally bawled my eyes out.
On the thread, I thought to myself, Free health care would save this poor persons life.
I may not be an expert on the industry but denying free health care I reckon, Is denying poor peoples lives.

People don't want to because it would make the tax rates go up. Go figure.

 

[SaintMorose]

Why does everyone assume they'll pay more?

The government alone already outspends Canada per person on health care subsidizing the current system. This includes paying for the health care of those who do not have insurance (yeah the money comes from somewhere did people not know it comes from the tax payer?).

This is all before you pay a cent of your premiums to your health insurance company. The main reason the system needs reform is the middle class currently pays far too much and the lower class cant afford it. The Rich don't need a plan (or didn't until the new law kicks in) so they don't help out by buying into this.

Yeah if you do a partial reform that doesn't address wasteful government spending on health care taxes will go up. But with real reform you pay less.

 

[zehydra]

What would be ideal, is a form of health care which comes from a non-profit corporation that isn't the government, but has some other incentive other than fees from individual sufferers. (it's only an "ideal" for a reason)

 

[TheUnstoppableRobman]

I'll assume we are ignoring the States rights part of that...

Health Insurance in the States has always been part of the free market if the answer was as simple as competition isn't good enough then why are no newer companies coming up and making huge money under-cutting the current ones? Why are none of the current companies cutting rates while the rest raise them and taking the majority of the market share?

Increasing the competition looks good on paper but the companies are not all held to the same rules. As a result we could easily see companies driven out of business through no fault of their own and a return to monopoly. That's not necessarily a given; however based on the current scene what's to stop it from happening again with so much in it's favor. There's a reason that only one country (of the industrial western nations) thinks its a good idea to trust the "free market" with it's health care (I use quotations as it is not truly a free market when everyone is forced to buy a specific product).

Other reasons to be against it include out-sourcing jobs and consumer spending to another State during a period of high-unemployment; but I won't go into that...

Please go into how unemployment will rise for Americans if OTHER Americans will get the business?? Please explain. Please explain how it's not a "States right" to offer service to any state in our union. And How can any new companies offer lower rates in an industry with major barriers to entry (economic lag) and no chance to penetrate a market outside their own? Why fight your "competition" when the current system has them set up as allies? With price fixing perfectly legal, why lower prices? You obviously have no grasp of how lassiez-faire works. There are major factors behind why your opinion is empty, all of which based in Capitalist economic theory which you obviously don't know. Read "Wealth of Nations" then we'll talk.

 

[MajorDooshbag]

I'm to assume you meant to ask why the people in the US have a negative opinion about a national health care system.

The short answer, the people who benefit most from privatized medicine have waged an extremely effective propaganda war against it from when it was proposed by Truman in 1948 until the present with the current legaslative abortion that certain lesser-minded conservatives derisively call "Obama-care".

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.

What about recouping the doctors' losses for medical school? That shit ain't cheap. Doctors may not have a choice in being pricey; student loans are brutal.

I like one suggestion I've heard; have ROTC except for doctors and lawyers. People who wouldn't normally be able to afford it can then, and then you get their pledge to serve the country in their capacities, medicine and public service respectively, for some pre-determined amount of time. May or may not be a good solution for cutting health-care costs, depending on living wages for doctors during their time served and how much the government has to subsidize in schooling.

The only problem with that idea is, from what I know about medicine, most doctor are so buried in paper work these days (mostly as a result of excessive litigation) that they barely have time to see their patients. That system would only make the paper work problem even worse as it seems like a massive magnet for lawsuits.

 

[SaintMorose]

You obviously have no grasp of how lassiez-faire works. There are major factors behind why your opinion is empty, all of which based in Capitalist economic theory which you obviously don't know. Read "Wealth of Nations" then we'll talk.

I am familiar with Wealth of Nations

The book refers to a system in which government has no involvement and instead the invisible hand of the free market determines consumer principals

However we are talking about a "industry" where the consumer is forced to buy a product by law, not through consumer choice. Where different state governments set up different sets of rules for insurers.

And yet you still believe that an outdated ideology (even the US doesn't use a true laissiez-faire system) applies.

Furthermore you want to shut down discussion until I accept that that as a fact? (Well I guess arguing over this might be easier for you if I were to beat myself with a hammer...)

Please go into how unemployment will rise for Americans if OTHER Americans will get the business??

Strawman argument. I never said it rises for all Americans just Americans living in areas where their health insurance companies face stricter regulation and either bankrupt/ move to a different state. As a result certain states would oppose to this. The way you could see job loss is smaller insurance companies being run out of business with larger ones coming into their market share.

Please explain how it's not a "States right" to offer service to any state in our union

Strawman Argument Once again this is not my position. My position is that States should be allowed to create their own laws to regulate the industry. And anyone selling must adhere to those laws. The problem with selling cross-state is where will the company be tried if such laws are broken and which set of regulations will they be forced to follow.

How can any new companies offer lower rates in an industry with major barriers to entry (economic lag) and no chance to penetrate a market outside their own?

If you allow the popular health insurance companies to become larger then it creates a larger barrier to new companies. You aren't adding anymore people and increasing market share to the system just allowing for larger companies to take control of greater portions. You won't see competition grow in this industry with it becoming harder to run a successful start-up.

Why fight your "competition" when the current system has them set up as allies?

Set up like allies? There is still inter-state competition in the current system.

Hopefully that was much more clear and you don't need to pervert my point of view.

edit: My guess is you've never actually read what Adam Smith had written about insurance (or how his writings avoided health insurance).

 

[TheUnstoppableRobman]

fucked up my post

 

[TheUnstoppableRobman]

I am familiar with Wealth of Nations

The book refers to a system in which government has no involvement and instead the invisible hand of the free market determines consumer principals

However we are talking about a "industry" where the consumer is forced to buy a product by law, not through consumer choice.

Strawman argument. I never said it rises for all Americans just Americans living in areas where their health insurance companies face stricter regulation and either bankrupt/ move to a different state. As a result certain states would oppose to this. The way you could see job loss is smaller insurance companies being run out of business with larger ones coming into their market share.


Strawman Argument Once again this is not my position. My position is that States should be allowed to create their own laws to regulate the industry. And anyone selling must adhere to those laws. The problem with selling cross-state is where will the company be tried if such laws are broken and which set of regulations will they be forced to follow.


If you allow the popular health insurance companies to become larger then it creates a larger barrier to new companies. You aren't adding anymore people and increasing market share to the system just allowing for larger companies to take control of greater portions. You won't see competition grow in this industry with it becoming harder to run a successful start-up.


Set up like allies? There is still inter-state competition in the current system.

Hopefully that was much more clear and you don't need to pervert my point of view.

edit: My guess is you've never actually read what Adam Smith had written about insurance (or how his writings avoided health insurance).

Health insurance is NOT madatory. I don't have health insurance. But basically you're saying that opening citizens up to other choices will not increase competition, and will only serve to empower/enlarge already popular insurance companies, and that true conmpetition is only fostered by start-ups? because there I simply disagree.

As far as regulations, there are lots of types of interstate commerce dealing with different sets of laws, and when you are offering a service in a state you are subject to THAT states laws. Unless of course any overarching federal guidelines have been established, and if the company in question were to fight the state's power then indeed once again federal courts would handle the matter.

The reason I say set up like allies is because once again with price fixing legal there is not suffiecent competition which is a contributing factor to the problem. You are right however that small business does drive much of American industry, but because of the barriers to entry regaurding capital, and regulations, and you have a recipie for an industry driven by larger size companies or a natural Oligopoly (See any industry that deals with natural resources, huge capital needs, or stringent rules and regs). That is why additional startups to me do not solve the problem, particularly with only being available in one state, they face trying to penetrate a fully saturated market with nothing to attarct customers but lower prices which are not as easily sustained by smaller companies as by largers ones. I.e. (Wal-Mart Predatory Pricing) Start-ups are set up to fail with the current rules in the insurance industry, the best step is to erase the lags, by forcing more competition, and disestablishing what is essantially price fixing. Make the big dogs turn on each other, instead of punishing the little dogs. By the way talk about perverting opionions, my whole Point in mentioning Adam Smith was to qucikly and concisely outling the framework of my opinion and why it is valid. you seem to think it's to seem knowledgeable to people I don't even know. So the whole "My guess is you've never actually read what Adam Smith had written about insurance (or how his writings avoided health insurance)" quip though colorful is out of place. I KNOW he never wrote about health insurance or even one specific industry. The book is about economic theory, and the principles to establish a functioning Capitalist system, the idea is that there are some cognisant overarching theory that applies to improving the effectiveness and effiecency of ALL industries within the system. The framework of my opinion is as follows:

There market will establish itself in supply, price, and demand.

Markets have an equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the maximum benefit for buyers and sellers.

Diversion from equilibrium impacts supply, price, and demand.

There are four Major economic lags in a capitalist system (Lack of Competition, Cost Dumping,Imperfect Information, and Pollution)

Removing these lags from a market will move it back towards equilibrium.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

1) They don't want to pay the taxes.

2) They think that people in the government will use the tax money for their own gain (though I should say that I highly doubt the people in question would get away with it).

3) Stories about "NHS death panels" (which were half true AT BEST, due to a misunderstanding about how the NHS works, and blown out of proportion) as well as other lies and half-truths and misunderstandings regarding the NHS.

4) They believe that ANYONE can dig themselves out of a bad situation.

5) For some reason they think that one step towards Socialism will invariably result in full Socialism and eventually Communism.

 

[kikon9]

Because the free health care plan that the government chose is horrible. They forced companies to give their employees unreasonable healthcare benefits. So, instead of giving the people the benefits, the companies have found it easier to just pay the fine (which costs less).

If they had instead introduced an option funded by the government that the public could use withouth paying, THAT would be good. The plan we have now is horrible.

 

[SaintMorose]

Health insurance is NOT madatory. I don't have health insurance.

The recent bill that passed (although this specific part won't be active for a while) has included such a mandate.
"In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine" from cbsnews

But basically you're saying that opening citizens up to other choices will not increase competition, and will only serve to empower/enlarge already popular insurance companies, and that true conmpetition is only fostered by start-ups? because there I simply disagree.

That's a fair point to disagree on; I don't see a dramatic change in competition but I cant prove it won't happen any better than you can prove it will.

There market will establish itself in supply, price, and demand.

Markets have an equilibrium.

Equilibrium is the maximum benefit for buyers and sellers.

Diversion from equilibrium impacts supply, price, and demand.

There are four Major economic lags in a capitalist system (Lack of Competition, Cost Dumping,Imperfect Information, and Pollution)

Removing these lags from a market will move it back towards equilibrium.

This would all be very nice if it were to happen; but the system is set-up against it. Things you've mentioned such as price fixing will continue to prevent free market principles from working. If we were to reform the system to something that would allow competition to actually occur I would be in favor of it, but don't believe the politicians saying this by itself is a solution.

Hopefully we can agree that this could address pricing issues; but it would need reform before coming anywhere near achieving these goals.

<edit side-note> Personality in the interest of creating competition The Public Option / Medicare buy-in were both on the table and you could have easily seen people paying for these instead of their premiums with no tax increases (just start chopping at the subsidies if the government needs money to be properly spent on HC). But the blue dogs/ republicans destroyed that; they have no interest in creating competition only making the biggest companies even larger. I don't know whether you were in favor of this idea/ideas but it was there to create real competition.

And yeah Adam Smith did talk about insurance

"The Value of risk, either from fire, or from loss by sea, or by capture, though it cannot, perhaps, be calculated very exactly, admits, however, of such a gross estimation as renders it, in some degree, reducible to strict rule and method."

In other parts of his book he mentioned many people going without insurance when they felt the prices were inconsistent with the risk. Which with the new law isn't exactly possible...