single-payer system ... singled out

[martu]

Ziggurat you mention people taking responsibility for themselves do you think this is the case in the US currently? Are US citizens more health conscious than us socialist Europeans?

 

[martu]

No, you are wrong. To suggest that I'm happy about anyone's misery is an insult, and should be beneath you.

Ok so these people that let their insurance slip at a bad time, say cancer, how do you propose to help them? I promise you they won't slip again but will they get the chance?

 

[Rolfe]

Why are you engaging in an ad hominem attack against me?

Point of information. That is not an ad hominem attack. Look it up.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Point of information. That is not an ad hominem attack. Look it up.

Rolfe.

Yes it was. Don't even try to pretend that ponderingturtle wasn't saying that I'm an ideologue who won't let facts get in the way. That's an attack against me personally, intended to discredit me without addressing the substance of anything I said, and therefore an ad hominem. It's beneath him, and it's beneath you to try to excuse him for it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This has already been addressed: if you've maintained coverage, you can't be turned down or denied if you change coverage because of an existing condition. So don't let your coverage lapse. The sob stories mostly come from people who thought they could get away with not paying for health insurance, and found out the hard way that they were wrong.

They will figure out ways. The easiest is to wait for them to lose their employment. Then you have them.

I am sure there are others as well.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Why are you engaging in an ad hominem attack against me?

Making it clear what the issue is. Why do you think people support goverment paid for private health care that has 30% pluss administration fees when the goverment can provide the samer coverage for less?

Ideology dictates that the private solution is cheaper so it does not matter what actualy costs less.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes it was. Don't even try to pretend that ponderingturtle wasn't saying that I'm an ideologue who won't let facts get in the way. That's an attack against me personally, intended to discredit me without addressing the substance of anything I said, and therefore an ad hominem. It's beneath him, and it's beneath you to try to excuse him for it.

Well, if the cap fits, by all means wear it.

I guess we all just find it very difficult to understand why so many people, in the nation which pays a lot more and by many measurements receives less, are so bitterly opposed to the idea of having the same advantages as we have.

There might be genuine reasons why the USA cannot have what we have - starting too late, and the difficulty of getting there from the current starting point (possibly the same thing) spring to mind. However, I seldom see this point of view expressed with regret. Rather, any possible objection is jumped on and hailed as the great reason why the USA can't and won't and shouldn't have universal healthcare - apparently because the speaker doesn't want it.

It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Making it clear what the issue is.

No you're not. Assuming a particular malign motive on the part of your opponent does nothing to clarify any issue. Quite the reverse: you're obfuscating the issues by ignoring the fact that this debate isn't only about costs.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, if the cap fits, by all means wear it.

In other words, you think the ad hominem attack is true and therefore justified. You know, I honestly expected better from you.

 

[Architect]

Ziggy (sorry, but it's easier to type)

You've not said what you believe the acceptable baseline level of medical treatment to be. I'm interested to know.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggy (sorry, but it's easier to type)

I've never been offended by abbreviations.

You've not said what you believe the acceptable baseline level of medical treatment to be. I'm interested to know.

I don't have a particular level figured out in any great detail (and to do so would frankly take more work than I'm willing to invest), so I don't think I could give you a satisfying answer.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

You must have a ballpark idea in order to know that it would be lower than the coverage we get. Are you thinking in terms of treatment for life threatening conditions only? What about chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes; do they get regular check ups as well as inhalers/insulin? Give us some sort of idea.

 

[Rolfe]

In other words, you think the ad hominem attack is true and therefore justified. You know, I honestly expected better from you.

No, I'm saying that if that's how you want to interpret his words, then be my guest.

Now, let's recap where we are. Proportionately, we pay less in tax than you do, towards the cost of government-provided healthcare. For that price, we are entitled to the medical/surgical invertigation/treatment we need, without having to pay any more. Irrespective of our own personal wealth or income, and irrespective of how much tax we have ever paid.

This entitlement continues irrespective of our employment, or lack of it. It continues no matter how much we may have received from the system in the past - there is no upper limit. It continues even if we have chosen also to purchase additional healthcare insurance.

We are free to choose our own physician, and whichever hospital we wish to attend for consultant-level care. We are free to have a raging fight with our registered GP and switch to another practice. We are free to purchase additional healthcare insurance, and then use either that or the NHS at any time as we choose. We are free to access private medical care and pay for it out of our own funds, even if we don't have any insurance.

And if we have an emergency, the NHS will come and get us and treat us irrespective of insurance cover or not. And if we run out of money and have to stop our private treatment, the NHS will pick up the pieces. And if our insurance company terminates our cover the NHS will pick up the pieces. And if we have some sort of catastrophic adverse event in a private hospital which it can't cope with, the NHS will take us as a transfer and pull our sorry backside out of the fire.

For some reason, you seem not to want a system like this. I mean, actively not want it.

I can understand someone with their nose pressed longingly to the window, wishing they could indeed have all this but not believing this is possible. What I can't understand is someone who seems hell-bent on finding every spurious reason he can possibly lay his hands on to avoid such a terrible fate.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

Now, let's recap where we are. Proportionately, we pay less in tax than you do, towards the cost of government-provided healthcare.

Indeed. Now keep that in mind for the next bit.

I can understand someone with their nose pressed longingly to the window, wishing they could indeed have all this but not believing this is possible. What I can't understand is someone who seems hell-bent on finding every spurious reason he can possibly lay his hands on to avoid such a terrible fate.

But that is not actually the option before us. If the US tries to adopt a single-payer system, we WILL NOT end up with what you have. It's just not credible that we could to dramatically expand government coverage (which is what you're saying we should do) and have the costs actually come down. Blame whoever you want to for that, but if government dramatically extends coverage, total government spend will increase significantly as well. There is no reason to believe that anything else will happen.

And if someone wants to prove me wrong, they can start by making Medicare do what they want a universal system to be able to do.

 

[Ziggurat]

You must have a ballpark idea in order to know that it would be lower than the coverage we get. Are you thinking in terms of treatment for life threatening conditions only?

Something closer to that than to a single payer system. And I'm amenable to assistance for low-income people to buy coverage beyond that. But I'm very much in favor of people having to contribute to their own health care, and to having more health care services provided to people who contribute more. I want individual incentives, both to keep costs down and to contribute their own money for their own care, to remain in the system.

 

[Architect]

I think this is where there's the major parting of views.

It was Nye Bevan the founder of the NHS, who remarked - with understandable anger - that there were racehorses in the UK which received better standards of medical treatment than people. The NHS was formed specifically to ensure across the board, equal access to free at the point of delivery treatment. It has, for all its flaws, clearly been successful.

I consider such access to healthcare to be not just a mark of any mature society, but a right for the citizens of any such state together with (and in no particular order) education, freedom of speech and thought, and equal treatment under the law. As far as I can tell, these views are fairly typical not just of my country but also the rest of the UK generally. I further note in passing that not a single mainstream political party has sought to take a different stance, ditto the churches.

For the avoidance of doubt, my politics would be considered centre-right in UK and EU terms, notwithstanding my party of choice being SNP and hence centre-left. I'm not particulary socialist, although in threads like this I end up feeling that some think we're all in bed with the Reds.

 

[Ziggurat]

It was Nye Bevan the founder of the NHS, who remarked - with understandable anger - that there were racehorses in the UK which received better standards of medical treatment than people.

I don't see why that's a problem. And that's got nothing to do with me looking down on poor people or anything of the sort: I don't see why it's a problem that a racehorse should get better medical treatment than I do. Why should I care? That smacks of jealousy.

The NHS was formed specifically to ensure across the board, equal access to free at the point of delivery treatment. It has, for all its flaws, clearly been successful.

Yes, it has achieved that goal. But that is not a goal I want our government to pursue.

I consider such access to healthcare to be not just a mark of any mature society, but a right for the citizens of any such state

I don't. I am not, in general, much of a believer in positive rights. Primary education is about the only real exception where I'm unreservedly in favor of treating it as a positive right, and not a perk.

 

[Architect]

I don't see why that's a problem. And that's got nothing to do with me looking down on poor people or anything of the sort: I don't see why it's a problem that a racehorse should get better medical treatment than I do. Why should I care? That smacks of jealousy.

 

[Ziggurat]

I care about what standard I get, but why should it matter to me what standard of care a racehorse gets? What difference does it make? If I'm satisfied with my care, should I be upset if the horse gets better care? If I'm dissatisfied with my care, is it any consolation if horses are being treated worse? I don't see why. Care to explain the theory to me?

 

[Matthew Best]

But if you're stupid with your money, you don't need a health care crisis to get you in trouble.

Indeed. In fact, that's the last thing you need! But in your proposed system a health care crisis will get you in trouble, whereas under the NHS, it won't.