Universal Health Care in the US. Yea or Nea?

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

Slippery_slope_(fallacy)WP

How is it a fallacy when I've already described an instance where I've experienced it. I'm sure the fat woman was ecstatic when she found out she could get food AND medical free. What does she contribute to me??? Nothing.

 

[Cobalt]

What is your objective?

To be the next Stig. Objective for what, though, honestly? As far as healthcare reform? I'd rather have a system that offers the best quality of care to patients, not one that covers everyone at a lower standard of care.

Isn´t the only option for what?

Health care reform.

 

[volatile]

Why is your only argument for this the cost? I get it. It isn't as costly. That shouldn't mean that it is the only option available. That's the point I make that you refuse to hear.

Because that's the one Dan opened with - objections on cost grounds.

You'll note from the links I already provided that socialised systems also provide better mortality rates. But yes, you're right, the USA does have more MRI scanners per capita. On that metric, you have the greatest healthcare system in the WORLD.

Give me another option. There are, as best I can see, only 3.

1) No socialised healthcare at all.
Each to their own. Without some form of socialised provision, the needy die. This is simply unacceptable. On this, I hope we agree.

2) Socialised healthcare for some
With patchy socialised provision, as the USA has, it seems that the patchiness contributes to the costs and the poor levels of health generally. Again, I hope we can agree on that, as that's what the statistics seem to bear out

3) Socialised healthcare for everyone
The levels and manner of provision will vary from system to system, but in general these types of systems are borne out in practice as cheaper and more effective. They are also more morally sound, as they do not allow people to die, suffer or face financial ruin from preventable causes simply due to lack of money.

Is there another I've missed? Although you have made some mention of "alternatives", there don't logically seem to be any...

 

[Toke]

To be the next Stig. Objective for what, though, honestly? As far as healthcare reform? I'd rather have a system that offers the best quality of care to patients, not one that covers everyone at a lower standard of care.

Be happy, I think you got that.

If you can afford it, the US might well have the best care in the world.
Too bad for the paupers who can´t, like 20-90% of the population.

 

[DaN K. StAnLeY]

There are, as best I can see, only 3.

Then I have a feeling those are the only three you will see. So whats the deal? Are you sharpening your debate skills or just making yourself feel better about your country taking your money?

 

[volatile]

I don't know, and it isn't my place to come up with it. It's more than possible that there is another option, even if I don't know it.

So you're telling me, rather forcefully, I'm wrong, even if you can't say how, and even if I have firm evidence to the contrary? You just kind of sense I'm wrong, because what I say rankles your ideological preconceptions?

Classic ideologue. No evidence, no sense, only bluster.

Don't assume you know my motives, thanks. What is there that doesn't have the risk of suffering/death/financial ruin? Get in a car, someone slams into you, you might suffer, or die, or financial ruin being unable to afford repairs.

Sorry... let me get this straight. You are opposed to a universal healthcare system because you think without one you are teaching people some fundamental lesson about risk? Really?

You aren't either, you're just sitting there throwing insults going, "It's cheaper! You're wrong!" I am personally just not convinced that it's the best plan. Call me whatever you want, if it makes you feel angelic and savior like.

Far from it. You'll note that I have linked studies which crunch the numbers as well as made a coherent ethical case based on the comparison of real-world examples. You, on the other hand, have rather forcefully asserted that you think I'm wrong, even though you can't say why or how, have not linked to any numbers or statistics, or even attempted to make the moral case for the destructive ideology of rugged individualism you are espousing.

You are arguing for a system (or type of system, more broadly) that is more expensive, and worse. It was always going to be a tough sell, I'm sure, but you've not even made the most rudimentary of efforts to do so.

 

[volatile]

Then I have a feeling those are the only three you will see. So whats the deal? Are you sharpening your debate skills or just making yourself feel better about your country taking your money?

What are the others? Seriously. Either everyone has cover, some people have it, or no-one does. What other option is there?

And on the money, need I repeat that my country takes less of my money to provide me with a service I can access than your country takes of yours to pay for a service you can't. So you should probably stop repeating that, as it's making you look silly.

 

[Cobalt]

Because that's the one Dan opened with - objections on cost grounds.

You'll note from the links I already provided that socialised systems also provide better mortality rates. But yes, you're right, the USA does have more MRI scanners per capita. On that metric, you have the greatest healthcare system in the WORLD.

I prefer CAT scans. Those are spiffy.

Give me another option. There are, as best I can see, only 3.

1) No socialised healthcare at all.
Each to their own. Without some form of socialised provision, the needy die. This is simply unacceptable. On this, I hope we agree.

Since we're not uncivilized animals, yes, I agree.

2) Socialised healthcare for some
With patchy socialised provision, as the USA has, it seems that the patchiness contributes to the costs and the poor levels of health generally. Again, I hope we can agree on that, as that's what the statistics seem to bear out

We do agree here too. However, perhaps there's a way to fix this.

3) Socialised healthcare for everyone
The levels and manner of provision will vary from system to system, but in general these types of systems are borne out in practice as cheaper and more effective. They are also more morally sound, as they do not allow people to die, suffer or face financial ruin from preventable causes simply due to lack of money.

Very well. I still feel that there's potentially another way.

Is there another I've missed? Although you have made some mention of "alternatives", there don't logically seem to be any...

And you may very well be right. I prefer to keep an open mind instead of sticking to a single choice.

There will always be opposition to the government taking control of anything in the US. See the post I made earlier.

If you can afford it, the US might well have the best care in the world.
Too bad for the paupers who can´t, like 20-90% of the population.

Where on earth did THAT small range of numbers come from?

 

[Mitchell314]

How is it a fallacy when I've already described an instance where I've experienced it. I'm sure the fat woman was ecstatic when she found out she could get food AND medical free. What does she contribute to me??? Nothing.

There's a whole lot'uv more people than one lady. It comes down to equity and efficiency. I don't think there's any controversy that we want as many people with as good and cheap health care as possible with the suppliers getting along well, financially speaking. Nor is there a questioning that a more healthy population would give a trend that tries to lead to better productivity, which improves the standard of living.

 

[Lonewulf]

Then I have a feeling those are the only three you will see. So whats the deal?

If you have alternatives, I'd like to hear them.

Are you sharpening your debate skills or just making yourself feel better about your country taking your money?

This is pretty much meaningless rhetoric. I could say the same thing about hospitals looking to make a buck (and providing only the most expensive treatments) "taking your money", I think it would impress you about as much as your "country taking your money" rhetoric does me.

 

[Lonewulf]

To be the next Stig. Objective for what, though, honestly? As far as healthcare reform? I'd rather have a system that offers the best quality of care to patients, not one that covers everyone at a lower standard of care.

But define "lower standard"? The U.S. falls behind other countries on differing levels of health care; it only has the benefit of shorter wait times and general responsiveness, and that's about it.

It might be possible to go to a mix like you see in Germany, but I'm not sure how much preferable it would be.

 

[volatile]

There will always be opposition to the government taking control of anything in the US. See the post I made earlier.

Sure. But that opposition is ideologically and not factually based. As such, I reject it out of hand.

You keep saying that there are other options, but just in terms of logic you can see this isn't true. All, none or some.

In the some we can argue who qualifies and how to jiggle the numbers (this is essentially what happens in the US now), and in the "all" we can argue about what level of service is to be provided free at the point of use. All universal systems are built differently depending on each country's priorities. But the fact remains that ALL of these outperform the "some" model by some way, for better cost and without the messy moral conundrums of to whom to deny care.

I'm not arguing for a uniquely public system, and there is certainly a place for private health insurance. But not, as the American example should warn us, at the cost of the health of the most needy and the wealth of the nation's citizenry as a whole.

 

[Toke]

Where on earth did THAT small range of numbers come from?

I don´t know how much the BEST care cost and how many could afford it.
With alot of people uncovered and more undercovered it can´t be that many.

Still beats your feel for another option.
Remember that universal healthcare have many expresions.

 

[Cobalt]

But define "lower standard"? The U.S. falls behind other countries on differing levels of health care; it only has the benefit of shorter wait times and general responsiveness, and that's about it.

It might be possible to go to a mix like you see in Germany, but I'm not sure how much preferable it would be.

Personalized attention, really, is more or less the higher standard I mean. Seems too much these days that doctors don't get to get to know their patients as people, just as illnesses that need to be cured.

My views on health care are hard to put into words, really.

 

[volatile]

But define "lower standard"? The U.S. falls behind other countries on differing levels of health care; it only has the benefit of shorter wait times...

And don't forget, those wait time stats for the US basically (necessarily) exclude all the infinite wait times of those unable to access any treatment at all, so they're hardly meaningful.

 

[Toke]

My views on health care are hard to put into words, really.

That pose a bit of a problem here, words being the media of expression.

 

[Cobalt]

That pose a bit of a problem here, words being the media of expression.

Quite so, but for other reasons I may have different concerns on top of the standard health care concerns. Thus, I can't find a good way to explain my position and thoughts.

 

[Toke]

Ok, then think it over, and try again later.
You might have something valuable to contribute.

 

[Lonewulf]

Personalized attention, really, is more or less the higher standard I mean. Seems too much these days that doctors don't get to get to know their patients as people, just as illnesses that need to be cured.

My views on health care are hard to put into words, really.

I experienced quite a bit of that in Germany, myself, which runs in a mixed public-and-private type of healthcare; I remember visits being particularly cheap there.

Either way, the doctors were very personable, and seemed to see you as a person. I got the medication that I needed, and they took good note of previous conditions.

I would call the service I received for my bronchitis pretty high-end, overall.

 

[balrog666]

So you don't want to pay less for your healthcare....

So you don't want to pay less for your US-Government supplied and rationed healthcare....

Fixed it for you.