Why do some people think free healthcare is bad?

[spartandude]

Ok people when we say free healthcre we mean state healthcare, as in the money for it comes from taxes

i think it can be done well, granted here in Britain it isnt brilliant (definately not bad but really needs improving) and the spending cuts arnt helping it, but atleast everone can get the healthcare they need which is good
the problem is most governments cant mange anything very well, except for sweden which had amazing health care,
and i know what you guys have said about sweden that its good because of the small population, but if it gets its money from taxes then that means its still on a smaller budget which means its still managed amazingly, we just need to be better at manging it

ps, why is america so scared of anything remotely left wing? particually given the health of america i dont see why you lot are opposed to free health care

 

[pauljefferson]

I'm currently studying economics, and I think at this point it should be pointed out that the American government already pays for more in healthcare (per capita, over the whole population) through scheme such as Medicare and Medicaid then the UK and most EU governments do in order to cover their entire population. So we get the entire NHS for less tax dollars per person than the US pays to get a very small amount of coverage.

Also, the statistics show that the USA has some of the worst health outcomes in the developed world, so its not exactly like it is producing better health outcomes than elsewhere either.

 

[10BIT]

Secondly because its EXTREMELY expensive.

Not when compared to the amount US citizens pay health insurance companies.

And as most people know government does a shitty job at running it.

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.

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

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

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)

Bullshit! If you need urgent help, you will receive it. If it's non-urgent you have a maximum wait time of (iirc) 3 months; they will pay for private healthcare if they cannot attend to you in less than 3 months. The average wait time is less than 1 month for non-urgent operations.

Life isn't fair and you need to accept that.

[offtopic]I hate it when people say this. You are wrong. Life is whatever you believe it to be. If you say 'life is unfair', you'll only see the bad things in life and become a miserable old hag. If you say 'life is awesome', you'll see only the good things and life will become awesome. The best thing you can do to overcome feelings of negitivity is to smile and say 'life is awesome!'[/offtopic]

1) Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, has to pay for it. It may not be the recipient of the care, their insurance or anyone even remotely related to the case, but eventually someone is going to be stuck with the bill. (And it really doesn't seem fair to put the bill on someone who was completely uninvolved, but that's a different argument).

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.

2) It allows for a potentially frightening level of government control over the populace. Once the government controls the healthcare industry, it's really not much of a stretch to start dictating specific limits on who receives said care, and eliminating the undesirables. Is that likely to happen? I can't say, but the potential is there, and everyone should certainly be wary of it.

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

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.

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.

There will never, ever be an end to discrimination within our species.

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.

 

[10BIT]

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.

 

[snave]

We have perfectly working free healthcare in Australia... Not to mention Canada and a lot of European and South American nations have insanely good healthcare systems.

Asian nations too. South Korea has a great system, and Japan had one of the best.

 

[Turing]

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.
You people seriously think that'd be my own damn problem then and I

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.

So, what exactly? Who decides whether you brought on yourself? Imagine I was diagnosed with a severe depression through no fault of my own, am unable to work and don't have the money for or medicine.
Is it alright that I spiral into possible insane hobo-ism if I lived in America and couldn't get help?

 

[Zorg Machine]

Because people are greedy and don't want to pay for other people.

 

[Naleh]

Most of the Western world has government-run healthcare, and it works very well. America is just scared of it because of their Cold War "everything must be capitalist capitalist CAPITALIST" mentality.

 

[D64nz]

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.

There's 2 major problems with "free" healthcare:

1) Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, has to pay for it. It may not be the recipient of the care, their insurance or anyone even remotely related to the case, but eventually someone is going to be stuck with the bill. (And it really doesn't seem fair to put the bill on someone who was completely uninvolved, but that's a different argument).

2) It allows for a potentially frightening level of government control over the populace. Once the government controls the healthcare industry, it's really not much of a stretch to start dictating specific limits on who receives said care, and eliminating the undesirables. Is that likely to happen? I can't say, but the potential is there, and everyone should certainly be wary of it.

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.

I work very hard at what I do. I also have no trouble supporting free-loaders if it means their many kids (generalization I know) will have an opportunity to be better than their parents. That's why we must think in 50year social plans instead of 5 year business cycles. That's why we should never limit a person's potential via capital classification and stratification. The classification of status based on wealth will be the last socially acceptable form of discrimination left in the modern era. Once it is truly conquered, the sky is the limit for our species.

There's one problem with this: There will never, ever be an end to discrimination within our species. So long as people are different, some will convince themselves that those differences mean inherently different levels of worth. It is simply impossible to eradicate discrimination. It's a very noble goal, but it's also an impossible one. The best that can happen is that what is used to discriminate shifts frequently enough that no one group solidifies power (which is what has happened in most of the Western world).

I do pity you greatly if this is what you actually believe.

Sorry for such a long quote but...


What do you say about the billions of dollars your country pays to forein nations in aid, while your own people suffer? How does that work? Would it not be best to look after your own backyard before going in to help others?

 

[merman]

Healthcare should NOT be a business.

Here in the UK we have the National Health Service, which is free at the point of delivery. And that's a good thing. Over the last couple of years I have had a lot of contact with the system (due to my diagnosis with Crohn's disease) and it was free; a good job because my poor health prevents me working full time to pay for it. Now I do have to pay for my prescription medicine, the cost of which is reduced by pre-paying. But for those with cancer, prescriptions are free.

There are many people with private healthcare insurance here, and with the Conservatives in power the chances are there will be more reform aimed at making the health service more business-like. That's a bad thing. The so-called choice and reliance on performance tables has given some hospitals a bad reputation and diverted funding away from places that really need it.

 

[merman]

What do you say about the billions of dollars your country pays to forein nations in aid, while your own people suffer? How does that work? Would it not be best to look after your own backyard before going in to help others?

Read your UN charter. Member countries are committed to providing foreign aid, and even though very few countries meet their full obligation, in providing aid they are doing good for the world. The real shame has been when aid has been tied to business contracts or even military aid. And as a percentage of what countries spend, the foreign aid is a very small amount (less than 1%) - when you consider how much has been spent on the "War on Terror", a few million on providing food aid to some of the poorest people in the world is a pittance.

 

[D64nz]

What do you say about the billions of dollars your country pays to forein nations in aid, while your own people suffer? How does that work? Would it not be best to look after your own backyard before going in to help others?

Read your UN charter. Member countries are committed to providing foreign aid, and even though very few countries meet their full obligation, in providing aid they are doing good for the world. The real shame has been when aid has been tied to business contracts or even military aid. And as a percentage of what countries spend, the foreign aid is a very small amount (less than 1%) - when you consider how much has been spent on the "War on Terror", a few million on providing food aid to some of the poorest people in the world is a pittance.

You have a very good point there. For all of us here, unless one of us wants to truely research it, we have no idea of the actuall dollar amounts going in and out ie money spent on weapons vs money spent on aid. But sadly, usually its safe to assume that the money spend on arms is far higher in most cases, looking at most countries in the world.
But why is that? Why is it cheaper to destroy than to build?

 

[WilliamRLBaker]

Because the poor should pull themselves up by their bootstraps or learn their place in the world.
/Republican
Anyways, some would say costs, but the ones who cry loudest about costs in America (at least the ones in nationally elected offices) don't give a damn about cost and want tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts while expecting to pay down the deficit while allowing the rich to hoard/not invest their money into the economy (whether they should do that or not is debatable but if you care so much about deficits it would be in your interest to get money to flow into the system in one of the few places where there's money left, especially in a country with so much wealth disparity that 2% have 85-95% of the wealth).
I'm also kinda pissed at the Democrat's healthcare bill. First they threw out the really good option to compromise with Republicans (single payer), then Obama did a backroom deal with insurance companies (there goes the public option), then we get this really reallly reallllllllllyyyyyyyy conservative healthcare bill (basically the same thing Republicans wanted to pass in 1994) and people are still like "hurr durr socialism". That and people whining about being forced to buy health insurance because they apparently want everybody else to foot their bill out of their taxes when they can't pay for it (one of the things they attack healthcare reform proponents for no less), not to mention the individual mandate was a Republican ideal.

So as for America the real reasons are:
Red baiting
Ignorance
Apathy/Sociopathy by corrupt or indifferent politicians

Added note: If it's an emergency, EMTALA makes sure they go to an emergency room, but if they can't pay for it, you eventually foot the medical bills out of your taxes anyways. HCR attempts to streamline that cost and makes things more efficient.

the reason Obama did that is because it was quite literally the only way to get republicans to sign off on the bill and some Democrats too.
the original bill wasn't bad a few tweaks here and there needed...but in the end Obama and his advisors had to cut nearly every progressive thing out of the bill just to get it through the works.

 

[Roganwilson]

I have a question: Is the average amount that an American spends on health insurance annually less than the taxes they would have to pay if there was a universal health-care system? I think that this would be a good thing to look at.

To me, a universal health-care system would be a great thing. I'm more than happy to pay for someone to get help, just as they are happy to help me. And if it means helping someone who can't help me, so be it. There is no reason we can't share. Also, what we are spending about half our money on is the military. Do we really need F-22 Raptors to fight insurgents with weapons made 30 years ago? I don't think so. If we scaled down our military spending (one smart bomb costs about $25,000, and a Raptor costs $150 million), think of the money that would then be able to be put into other programs.

 

[Flames66]

We have free health care (in theory), it's not that amazing. I mean it's great that if I ever break my arm I will be able to get it set for free, but what this seems to do is encourage people to break their arms more often by doing stupid things.

 

[Thanato5]

Free health care IMO should be a given for any civilized country. anyone moaning about costs and communism really needs to get their head examined. Which incidentally they can with free health care.
in the UK there is the NHS which isn't perfect by a long shot but it is better then the alternative. No one deserves to be kicked out of a hospital uncured simply because they ran out of money.
No one deserves to be bend over by insurance companies that have a policy of declining everything the first 10 times in the hope you stop asking and pay everything yourself.
IMO the USA needs to get a reality check, stop acting like the classroom bully and start paying attention to the rest of the world.

 

[Wicky_42]

Do you want to pay for it?

Money has to come from somewhere.

Guess who pays? Everyone! Through small taxes! Just like the roads, the police force, the army and all those politicians. You may not drive, but your taxes still go towards the roads. You may never crash, but your insurance money may still be used by the firm to cover someone disabled for life by a collision. You may never be robbed, but you still pay for the police to do their job.

Socialised/nationalised health is basically health insurance for everyone, paid in taxes. You're always covered, you never have to really worry about affording any treatment, and in the event that you get hit by some completely life-shattering disease or are permanently disabled for life, your treatment is subsidised by the entire country.

Such a civilised solution, I really can't understand the attitudes of people like you who seem to think that this is money from nowhere, or that ill people somehow are suddenly greedy bastards now that they can see the benefit of socialised healthcare in saving their life affordably. Imagine if it was your own family - have a little damn empathy!

 

[spartandude]

We have free health care (in theory), it's not that amazing. I mean it's great that if I ever break my arm I will be able to get it set for free, but what this seems to do is encourage people to break their arms more often by doing stupid things.

having lived in a country with free healthcare, ive never had the mentality to go brake my skeletal structure because i can get it fixed for free

 

[Wicky_42]

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.

There's 2 major problems with "free" healthcare:

1) Someone, somewhere, at some point in time, has to pay for it. It may not be the recipient of the care, their insurance or anyone even remotely related to the case, but eventually someone is going to be stuck with the bill. (And it really doesn't seem fair to put the bill on someone who was completely uninvolved, but that's a different argument).

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?

2) It allows for a potentially frightening level of government control over the populace. Once the government controls the healthcare industry, it's really not much of a stretch to start dictating specific limits on who receives said care, and eliminating the undesirables. Is that likely to happen? I can't say, but the potential is there, and everyone should certainly be wary of it.

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...