single-payer system ... singled out

[martu]

What was the insult exactly?

Bad form to quote myself but I'd like to reiterate this question, Ziggurat how did I insult you? I would like to apologise but I don't know what for.

 

[Toke]

The money would stay locked up in bank accounts, doing little or nothing for the economy.

I am not sure if it is and works that way.
If people have trouble meeting their health insurance payment they are not likely to have savings.
The money locked in bank accounts is most likely lent out for someone else to spend.


The worst economic problem I see is that 5-6% of GNP corresponds to alot of people doing not very productive work.
Processing insurance claims does not benefit society if compared to a society where they don´t excist.
It could be as bad as 5-6% of americans employed at non-work, if a jobcreating programme is really needed there must be more productive options.

 

[Rolfe]

Yes, I see your point. Makes sense. I still think it's unfortunate that people have to lock away so much in the way of savings that they simply can't possibly touch though, especially when they may have other very real needs. (I'm talking about Ziggurat's earlier comment about the aggressive saving he was doing to protect his healthcare access, and specifically of the highly praised "high-deductible" insurance policies. I would imagine if you had one of those, then you'd really have to aim to have the amount of the policy excess squirreled away somewhere.)

I do think it's funny when the free-market Americans respond to suggestions about how they could manage a universal healthcare service with lamentation about the job losses (mainly in the health insurace business and other aspects of healthcare accountancy that could become surplus to requirements). Keeping people in unproductive jobs is not a good reason for spending twice what you need to on medical services. Keeping the harness-makers in business is not a good reason not to introduce the automobile.

Rolfe.

 

[balrog666]

Balrog - just an observation, but I find your position on this issue even more shocking given a post of yours I just read in another thread...

"Back a long, long time ago, when I had some family medical problems and three kids to feed, I took a second job to make ends meet - working on a swing shift at a major, albeit minor-scale, retailer, working a few weeknights and weekends."

You've been there. You know how screwed the system is for people in your position [then]. How can you still stand behind it?

So, if I have a problem meeting my financial obligations, I should just smile and reach into your wallet?

 

[volatile]

So, if I have a problem meeting my financial obligations, I should just smile and reach into your wallet?

If by "my wallet" you mean the collective wealth of a civilised society, and if by "financial obligation" you mean "the ability to pay for my healthcare needs" and if by "smile" you mean "accept that you are part of society", then yes, wholeheartedly - especially if you'll agree to let me reach into your wallet should I have similar needs in the future, and especially if this transaction is cheaper for us both, on average, over the course of our lives.

How's that sound? Like hell to you? It just sounds grown-up, friendly and civilised to me (and to the rest of us).

 

[martu]

So, if I have a problem meeting my financial obligations, I should just smile and reach into your wallet?

Are you against any socialised health care, even the system the US has at the moment that only covers the poor?

 

[Rolfe]

If by "my wallet" you mean the collective wealth of a civilised society, and if by "financial obligation" you mean "the ability to pay for my healthcare needs" and if by "smile" you mean "accept that you are part of society", then yes, wholeheartedly - especially if you'll agree to let me reach into your wallet should I have similar needs in the future, and especially if this transaction is cheaper for us both, on average, over the course of our lives.

How's that sound? Like hell to you? It just sounds grown-up, friendly and civilised to me (and to the rest of us).

What he said. "The collective wealth of civilised society." We pay according to what we can afford, so no, no one person is going to reach into a single poor guy's wallet and take the entire amount they need for an expensive medical procedure. It's the "common good pool". Society builds up the funds (or the resources) so that they are there to be drawn on by individual members when in need.

The compulsory taxation part is to prevent freeloaders. To prevent someone who feels lucky from keeping their money for themselves and then being a burden to society when it so happens they're not as lucky as they thought they were.

A civilised society is not going to let you freeload. A civilised society knows that it will not stand by and see anyone suffer and die for lack of medical help. You may demand the right to be allowed to do that, but you have no right to lay it on the conscience of others that they allowed that to happen. So the civilised society makes sure that everyone who can pay in, pays in. Then when they need to draw out, the assets are there.

Grow up.

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only reason to do any payments through taxation is to force other people to pay. So no, I didn't miss anything.

The reason for doing things through taxation is to prevent freeloading.

That is a frequently-cited justification for forcing other people to pay, but you're still forcing other people to pay, so this in no way contradicts my statement. And it's frequently not even true.

In fact, the entire rational behind UHC is rather the reverse: you're taking money from people who have lots, and would thus be able to cover their own health care spending without freeloading, and spending it on people who would otherwise be unable to pay for their healthcare, thus turning them into freeloaders. Whatever the merits of such a system in terms of social stability, equality, etc, the one argument that it does NOT make sense to use for taxation to pay for UHC is that it stops freeloading.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bad form to quote myself but I'd like to reiterate this question, Ziggurat how did I insult you? I would like to apologise but I don't know what for.

You are willing to put your ideology, that government is bad, before what is best for the overwhelming majority of the population.

People like you scare me to be honest. .

Is it really a mystery to you why I might take that as an insult?

 

[Eskarina]

So, if I have a problem meeting my financial obligations, I should just smile and reach into your wallet?

It's called solidarity. Wonderful concept, methinks.

I contribute while I can and others, who need it right now, take. And with some probability they contribute, as well, because having a medical condition, that needs treatment, doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot work.

And I can sleep safely and soundly in the knowledge that, should I need medical help someday, I'll get it without me having to worry about accumulating huge medical bills or losing my insurance if I'm being made redundant.

 

[lomiller]

The basic idea is actually quite simple: positive rights are problematic, and tend to lead to an unhealthy expansion of government power and influence, and encourages dysfunctional dependency.

We understand the basis for your beliefs, the problem is that you actually refuse to accept the evidence that your beliefs don’t work in practice. There are several dozen countries with well funded universal health care systems. The US system struggles to keep up with any of them at twice the cost per person.

The difference is that I can recognize your stance as moral too, because I understand it's predicated on a different understanding of the way things work, whereas you cannot recognize that about me.

There is no need for us to appeal to our “moral position” on the matter. The model we are supporting has amply demonstrated it’s superiority over the one you support.

 

[lomiller]

That is a frequently-cited justification for forcing other people to pay, but you're still forcing other people to pay, so this in no way contradicts my statement.

Under your favored scheme they are forced to pay even more. Your position really boils down to the belief that it’s better to be forced to pay $2 to a private individual then it is to be forced to pay $1 in tax.

 

[Ziggurat]

Under your favored scheme they are forced to pay even more. Your position really boils down to the belief that it’s better to be forced to pay $2 to a private individual then it is to be forced to pay $1 in tax.

Taxation is the only compulsory payment under discussion. This is fundamentally different than a contractual obligation that you voluntarily agree to. Do you really not get the difference? No, I guess you do not.

 

[Eskarina]

That is a frequently-cited justification for forcing other people to pay, but you're still forcing other people to pay, so this in no way contradicts my statement. And it's frequently not even true.

In fact, the entire rational behind UHC is rather the reverse: you're taking money from people who have lots, and would thus be able to cover their own health care spending without freeloading, and spending it on people who would otherwise be unable to pay for their healthcare, thus turning them into freeloaders. Whatever the merits of such a system in terms of social stability, equality, etc, the one argument that it does NOT make sense to use for taxation to pay for UHC is that it stops freeloading.

Which is complete baloney. UHC takes money from people who can afford it, whether it is in the form of taxation like in the UK or in the form of premiums like in Germany (which are a form of taxation, as you can't avoid them - unless your employer is a crook) and spends it on anyone who needs it, whether they contribute or not. And the vast majority contribute. I, e.g. need blood pressure medication, which costs me about 25 EUR every three months with my health insurance. Without it I'd pay about 120 EUR. And if I didn't take it, perhaps because I couldn't afford it, I might have another, more serious stroke with more serious consequences, which might disable me. And I don't have "lots" and probably couldn't afford private HC insurance, especially not in the future as I get older.

As it is, I'm working full time and contributing to the system. So do most of the people I know. The freeloaders (those who could but don't want to) are really not that much of a burden. Although they do make the headlines in the media.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is complete baloney. UHC takes money from people who can afford it, whether it is in the form of taxation like in the UK or in the form of premiums like in Germany (which are a form of taxation, as you can't avoid them - unless your employer is a crook) and spends it on anyone who needs it, whether they contribute or not.

And this contradicts the fact that it's creating freeloaders... how? It doesn't. In fact, you've basically acknowledged it does.

And the vast majority contribute.

Which is relevant to the question of how many freeloaders we have.

The freeloaders (those who could but don't want to) are really not that much of a burden.

Again, this is all well and good, but it still contradicts the point Rolfe tried to make. Regardless of how big a burden they are, you've still got freeloaders, and UHC doesn't prevent them in any way, but rather permits them. But I'm surprised at the tack you're taking: rather than trying to justify the acceptance of freeloaders (the costs are small, the benefits are worth it, etc), you're basically trying to deny that Rolfe was wrong. Why? You don't need Rolfe to be right in order to justify your support for UHC.

 

[Rolfe]

Eskarina is in a different country from me. The system works differently. I don't know how "freeloaders" happen in Germany. The only way you can be a freeloader in Britain is by not paying your taxes. Which is fraud. And you'll go to jail. (Though you still won't be denied healthcare.)

Rolfe.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only way you can be a freeloader in Britain is by not paying your taxes.

What, you have to pay taxes if you're unemployed and on welfare?

 

[Eskarina]

And this contradicts the fact that it's creating freeloaders... how? It doesn't. In fact, you've basically acknowledged it does.

I did no such thing. How exactly does UHC create freeloaders? Do you honestly think that people become or stay unemployed because they don't want to pay UHC insurance or taxes? Or that it is an incentive in the US to get employment, when you lose insurance as soon as you lose the job? You can find lazy and greedy bums everywhere, who find unemployment and it's benefits preferable to work, but that is not an issue specifically pertinent to UHC.

Which leads us to...

Which is relevant to the question of how many freeloaders we have.

Very true. I'll do the research for Germany and you do it for the US, and tomorrow we'll compare the numbers.

Again, this is all well and good, but it still contradicts the point Rolfe tried to make. Regardless of how big a burden they are, you've still got freeloaders, and UHC doesn't prevent them in any way, but rather permits them. But I'm surprised at the tack you're taking: rather than trying to justify the acceptance of freeloaders (the costs are small, the benefits are worth it, etc), you're basically trying to deny that Rolfe was wrong. Why? You don't need Rolfe to be right in order to justify your support for UHC.

Wha? Perhaps that may be because of different UHC systems in the UK and in Germany? Rolfe was talking about the UK, while I was talking about Germany. Both countries have UHC, but different ways of financing it. And both seem to work better than the US system by most metrics.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

What, you have to pay taxes if you're unemployed and on welfare?

You still pay VAT on the stuff you buy.

 

[Eskarina]

Eskarina is in a different country from me. The system works differently. I don't know how "freeloaders" happen in Germany. The only way you can be a freeloader in Britain is by not paying your taxes. Which is fraud. And you'll go to jail. (Though you still won't be denied healthcare.)

Rolfe.

Freeloaders in Germany basically happen when someone is willingly staying unemployed, even though they could work. It is not easy, as the job agencies will give you a lot of hassle and cut your benefits, massively. Some people prefer it that way, most don't.